Skip to comments.
Wheels of justice are delayed by war (Accused soldier, families wait for decision on court-martial)
The News Enterprise ^
| March 1, 2004
| JACOB BENNETT
Posted on 03/01/2004 10:30:56 AM PST by SLB
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Hasn't been much about this recently. Need to not forget about it.
1
posted on
03/01/2004 10:30:57 AM PST
by
SLB
To: Lion Den Dan; Squantos; harpseal; Jeff Head; Travis McGee; sauropod; rightwing2; archy; ...
BTTT
2
posted on
03/01/2004 10:32:37 AM PST
by
SLB
("We must lay before Him what is in us, not what ought to be in us." C. S. Lewis)
To: SLB
Akbar's family initially feared he would not get a fair trial; they thought his race and his Muslim religion made him a target in the military. They said he wasn't the type of person who could take another life. Yea - he is a victim!
3
posted on
03/01/2004 10:33:40 AM PST
by
2banana
To: SLB
Why this "soldier" didn't take 3 in the chest that night is beyond me.
4
posted on
03/01/2004 10:38:38 AM PST
by
armyboy
(Posting from Sustainer Army Airfield Balad, Iraq. All Gave Some...Some Gave All)
To: armyboy
This traitorous POS needs to be dead.
5
posted on
03/01/2004 10:41:18 AM PST
by
Spruce
To: armyboy
Why this "soldier" didn't take 3 in the chest that night is beyond me. And now he is living in a whole lot better conditions than you are. I drive past the stockade on the way to work every day. They just renovated a large part of it. I am not sure if he is ever on any work details since he is in pre-trial.
6
posted on
03/01/2004 10:46:06 AM PST
by
SLB
("We must lay before Him what is in us, not what ought to be in us." C. S. Lewis)
To: SLB
A firing squad is too good. He needs a short drop and a sudden stop.
7
posted on
03/01/2004 10:47:33 AM PST
by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
To: SLB
I remember talking to my son shortly after this incident. He had previously trained with the 101st while he was in the 501st. His unit transported one of the victims and my son took it very hard. I hope that the public doesn't get behind this guy. He deserves the death penalty.
8
posted on
03/01/2004 10:55:52 AM PST
by
armymarinemom
(The family reunion is moving to Iran this year-Central location and a shorter trip for the kids)
To: armymarinemom
He deserves the death penalty. He also deserves a speedy trial; it wouldn't be all that amusing if he walked because the government was too slow to give him one.
9
posted on
03/01/2004 11:05:48 AM PST
by
Grut
To: SLB
They said he wasn't the type of person who could take another life. What the heck was he doing in the Army?
10
posted on
03/01/2004 11:08:58 AM PST
by
ArrogantBustard
(Chief Engineer, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemens' Club)
To: SLB
Thanks for the heads up. First, Akbr will get a fair trial in the military. His race and his religion will not prejudice a court martial. Second, based upon the evidence released there is a very good probablility he will be convicted and if so should recieve the death penalty.
11
posted on
03/01/2004 11:09:34 AM PST
by
harpseal
(Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
To: Grut
I agree. It would not surprise me if he was not quitely released.
I know, with the same certainy that I know the sun rises in the east, that he will be released if the democrats win the '04 election.
12
posted on
03/01/2004 11:13:05 AM PST
by
sport
To: Travis McGee
A firing squad is too good. He needs a short drop and a sudden stop.The chair is nice... especially if you bring it up nice and slow with a VARIAC!
To: SLB; All
I don't see anywhere in this article where Hasan Akbar (AKA "Chris"!) actually denies that he did the deed. And that would seem rather important before a journalist writing an article starts to fret about the potential fairness of a trial, wouldn't you think?
Typically your Muslim terrorist WILL admit, even boast, of his crime -- all the more inportant to know what "Chris" has to say.
14
posted on
03/01/2004 11:26:31 AM PST
by
WL-law
To: WL-law
To answer my own question, I found this in a news article at the time of the incident:
"... Special Agent Maier said three unused grenades were found in Akbar's gas-mask bag. Maj. Trey Cate, public affairs officer for the 101st, said few soldiers in the 1st Brigade had been issued grenades at that point.
Maier said he and a team of seven agents arrived at Camp Pennsylvania shortly after the shooting. He testified yesterday that the ranking officer on the scene, Col. Ben Hodges, commander of the 101st's 1st Brigade, told investigators that morning that Akbar made statements implicating himself.
Maier said that Hodges told the agents that Akbar had "made spontaneous statements that he had done this act because we, American soldiers, were going to kill and rape Muslims."
15
posted on
03/01/2004 11:33:43 AM PST
by
WL-law
To: WL-law
Maier said that Hodges told the agents... AKA "hearsay", and not generally admissable in court. Hopefully there was a tape running somewhere nearby, but then why not cite the tape?
16
posted on
03/01/2004 12:38:18 PM PST
by
Grut
To: 2banana
Muslims that couldn't take another life? Oh, REALLY? I know of at least 13 who have gone down in infamy for doing just that. Lest we also forget that Osama and his kindred are all Muslims and firmly believe in taking other's lives.
What about Arafat and his cronies? What about the Muslim problem Russia is dealing with?
They must mean that their boy must be of the Religion of Peace® variety.....
17
posted on
03/01/2004 1:45:17 PM PST
by
TheBattman
(Miserable failure = http://www.michaelmoore.com)
To: Grut
Maier said that Hodges told the agents...Pleeazze! Don't try to tell a lawyer what the Rules of Evidence are -- unless you're actually trying to look dumb.
Statements made by a party/defendant are not hearsay, first per the rules, as also as a matter of elementary logic.
18
posted on
03/01/2004 5:19:19 PM PST
by
WL-law
To: WL-law
Hodges can testify as to what Akbar said, but I believe that Maier's statement of Hodge's statement of what Akbar said is hearsay. I could be wrong, of course.
19
posted on
03/01/2004 6:53:23 PM PST
by
Grut
To: Grut
Hodges can testify as to what Akbar said, but I believe that Maier's statement of Hodge's statement of what Akbar said is hearsay. I could be wrong, of course. What makes you think that Maier won't be available to testify about what he found, and Hodge won't be available to testify about what Akbar said? My point in making the original post is that Akbar incriminated himself, as I suspected. And those statements that Akbar made WILL be admissible, as testified by Hodge.
20
posted on
03/01/2004 8:47:31 PM PST
by
WL-law
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson