| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Hearing in military slayings today |
| 2003-06-16 |
| Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, accused in a fatal grenade attack in Kuwait, is scheduled to go before a military hearing today at Fort Knox to face charges that could lead to his execution. Akbar, 32, is one of the few enlisted men ever accused of the premeditated murder of an officer in a combat area, and the case has drawn considerable interest in the armed forces. Ya think? The military hasn't executed a soldier in 42 years, and not in wartime since Pvt. Eddie Slovak was shot by a firing squad in Europe in 1945 for desertion. The military adopted lethal injection as its method of execution in 1999. ...and Slovik didn't murder anybody. Akbar, a Fort Campbell soldier assigned to the 326th Engineering Battalion, is accused in the attack at an American outpost in Kuwait just after the war in Iraq began. The blasts killed Army Capt. Christopher Seifert and Air National Guard Maj. Gregory Stone. Attorneys for the government and Akbar have not discussed the case. But some experts in military law say it appears to be a difficult one for the defense. That must be why they're "experts". The hearing will determine whether Akbar faces a court-martial. William Cassara, an Augusta, Ga., attorney who defends soldiers in military trials, said that is "a foregone conclusion" in Akbar's case. "This case is going to trial," Cassara said. "The other purpose (of the hearing) is to allow the commanding general to decide whether it should be a capital case. And my strongest hunch is that it will be a capital case." Good guess, counselor. The case falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a system of disciplining soldiers that has been in force since 1951, when the armed services came under the Defense Department. But courts-martial have been used since the Revolutionary War. And although military justice has been criticized as outdated and unfair to enlisted men, it has endured with reforms, including a recent requirement that capital cases be heard by a 12-member jury and that a unanimous verdict is needed for a death penalty. The proceeding at Fort Knox is known as an Article 32 investigation, which is equivalent to a civilian grand jury or preliminary hearing. One of the primary differences between the military and civilian court systems is that in the military, a defendant can have counsel and testify at the hearing, said Scott Silliman, a law professor at Duke University and a former Air Force colonel and lawyer. "It's a fair system," said Silliman, who speculated that Akbar's attorneys may use the weeklong hearing to calculate a defense strategy. But J. Robert Lilly, regents professor of sociology at Northern Kentucky University, said the military justice system is stacked against defendants like Akbar, despite reforms since World War II. "The problems persist in regard to command influence, and the system very definitely focuses on those with least power, the least rank," Lilly said. Spoken like a true sociology professor... Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, said Akbar may decide to testify on his own behalf at some point "if he has a story to tell that cannot come out any other way." But Dennis Hunt, a former Army brigadier general who taught law at West Point and who now teaches at Southern Mississippi University, questioned such a step. "Unless there is some astounding sleeper here, the defense cannot gain anything." Hunt said it would be prudent for Akbar's lawyers to explore a pretrial agreement to try to get the death penalty off the table. Translated: He's screwed. My heart's not breaking. Does he get the needle or does CAIR crank up the letter writing campaign to get him life? |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #14 Hmm... "3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life" I'd say rolling grenades into an occupied tent is "inherently dangerous", and certainly "evinced a disregard of human life". They have him pegged. Its only a matter of which arm the needle goes into. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-06-17 03:02:17 |
| #13 Amen Raptor! If this piece of shit did not want to go and fight in Iraq he had ample time to speak out. The fact that he was NOT going to move forward with the unit tells me the CO probably was going to send him back. Also he DID not have to stay in the military, if he hated it so much they would have cut him loose. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter) 2003-06-16 19:52:25 |
| #12 Bull Anon1,if he felt that strongly about it,all he had to do was tell his CO about how he felt attacking a fellow Muslim or Muslim country and his ass would have been on the first transport out. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-06-16 18:37:24 |
| #11 Emery, Exactly! When the Military goes to trial they have a pretty good case built. Unless of course they have some slipshod lawyer who doesn't do their job. But a military jury is every bit fickle about justice. Just because they may be educated and read papers doesn't mean they will all vote for capital punishment. If Hassan sobs to the Jury they more than likely will not sentence him to death. Just my barracks lawyer two-cents. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter) 2003-06-16 18:02:51 |
| #10 Considering many current interpretations of Islam blatantly and publicly say that you must stand up for a fellow muslim, even if that muslim is wrong and defend them against the kuffar, then the fact that he is Islamic IS relevant: the USA is by definition a Kuffar state and Iraq is a country of muslims. Therefore if this man subscribes to Islamofascism not secular islam then his religion has everything to do with it - it would literally order him if he wants to be true to his faith, to kill his own army comrades to defend the wrong muslim : Saddam. If he is an islamofascist, he had a choice: do what the US government tells me to do or do what Allah tells me to do. He (may) have chosen Allah. Of course it could have been for other reasons as well - but this is at least possible and deserves proper scrutiny. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2003-06-16 17:29:51 |
| #9 Gentlemen, Kindly knock off the nonsense about the UCMJ having the defendant âguilty until proven innocentâ. Having actually served on Courts-Martial [notice the use of the correct plural, a rare event] and civilian juries, I can state with some authority that the former dispenses far better justice than the latter. Mainly because defense counsel cannot pack the jury with persons who do not read the papers, have no education or have below average annual earnings [I have been excused from three juries for EXACTLY those reasons!]. Court-martial Boards, in my experience, take the issues of justice and objective truth far more seriously than civilian juries. I have voted three men acquitted of crimes they obviously committed, when the prosecution failed to adequately prove the case [he botched it despite signed confessions!]. In fact, our Court-Martial board unanimously voted ânot guiltyâ, and demanded better âchain of custodyâ and âMirandizingâ training for the MPs in the same document! BTW, the article 32 investigation [which has NO civilian counterpart] is conducted by a NON-LAWYER Officer chosen at random. He determines whether there is a case or not. Only after he affirms that a) the crime took place and b) the prosecution has reasonable evidence [specified list for each charge] to accuse someone. This is specifically intended to prevent spurious prosecutions [I have personally scotched bogus charges by a military prosecutor who had more zeal than hard evidence]. The hearing happens afterwards. |
| Posted by: emery 2003-06-16 17:13:49 |
| #8 Ok I will play barracks Lawyer. Akbar should take the stand and cry his eyes out. Military juries are very soft on criminals. He might do some hard time but I doubt he will swing. If he comes out swinging (ie they are all racists) no one (military) will believe that. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter) 2003-06-16 15:26:33 |
#7 The UCMJ subchapter X, article 118:918. ART. 118. MURDER |
| Posted by: Chuck (not Taylor) 2003-06-16 14:04:10 |
| #6 Fed UP - being black and being muslim has less to do with it than one might think. My guess is that there are far deeper problems with this guy than his religion (from a military POV). I went through the middle eastern orientation course with a black muslim green beret. Completely different type of man. As for the UCMJ, yeah it's harsh, it's supposed to be harsh. Military men and women are held to a higher standard of discipline. It's necessary for the job to be done. In most cases however, it takes a lot to get to the point of a court martial. So it's not like the UCMJ is just there to screw Joe. By the time you get to staring that jury in the face, you've screwed up BIG TIME. Just like this guy did. And speaking as an Enlisted Soldier I do not feel that the UCMJ proceedings are slanted against lower ranking members. As a lower ranking member it takes a lot more to ever get to a courtmartial than an officer, those guys actually do have a lot more to lose as far as their careers go. Since they are supposed to be leaders, their decisions can get them in trouble. Wheres I only have to convince the jury that I made the best judgement call that I could, under the circumstances. -DS "the horns hold up the halo." |
| Posted by: DeviantSaint 2003-06-16 11:54:43 |
| #5 Under the UCMJ you are guilty until proven innocent. Lotsa luck with the defense, kid. Hope you like rasins. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-06-16 10:48:45 |
| #4 Another reason why I am Fed UP....a black muslim, in the army, killing his own men...WTF??? |
| Posted by: Fed UP 2003-06-16 10:43:29 |
| #3 Too bad. So sad. The dufus killed two officers and injured 14 more while in a combat zone and expects to get a walk. He should get a walk-right off the end of a plank and experience a long fall on a short rope. |
| Posted by: Kirk 2003-06-16 09:43:54 |
| #2 Saw a report on TV news this morning Akbar's Mother say's"They are picking on my poor baby".Not an exact qoute |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-06-16 09:37:12 |
| #1 Hmm... "3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life" I'd say rolling grenades into an occupied tent is "inherently dangerous", and certainly "evinced a disregard of human life". They have him pegged. Its only a matter of which arm the needle goes into. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 6/17/2003 3:02:17 AM |