Posted on 10/15/2010 9:35:23 AM PDT by My Favorite Headache
FORT HOOD, Texas A soldier who recorded the terror of last year's deadly shooting rampage in Fort Hood using his cell phone was ordered by an officer to delete both videos, a military court heard Friday.
Under cross examination, Pfc. Lance Aviles told an Article 32 hearing that his noncommissioned officer ordered him to destroy the two videos on Nov. 5, the same day that a gunman unleashed a volley of bullets inside a processing center at the Texas Army post.
The footage could have been vital evidence at the military hearing to decide if Maj. Nidal Hasan should stand trial in the shootings. The 40-year-old American-born Muslim has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.
Prosecutors have not said whether they'll seek the death penalty if the case goes to trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
They can't. Which is most places these days prohibit unauthorized photographing.
“High up the food chain did this order go?”
Good question. I don’t know the USCMJ at all, but in most jurisdictions this would constitute an intentional destruction of evidence, which is usually a felony.
I would be very surprised if it is not in this case as well.
That was my thought but after all that THEN offer it to the officer so he can be sure of orders being followed by deleting it himself.
Well, this is certainly troubling.
On the other hand, there must have been several hundred witnesses to what happened. Are they saying they need a video to convict a multiple murderer who shot his victims before numerous witnesses?
This is the Associated Press, in which a frigate may be referred to as a “battleship”, and a B2 may be referred to as a “fighter”.
They are idiots, and 99.99% of them have never served a day in the military.
“1st Amendment applies here”
Does it? I’m not sure. I hope someone with a military legal background would comment as to what rights one gives up when they join the military.
The question would have been properly objected to as calling for hearsay.
It’s also an order to destroy evidence. Surely that’s not a lawful order.
Does this also mean the person who gave the order is guilty of obstruction of justice?
I really want to know where this order came from. Did it come from Obama and Holder? Obama has his fingerprints all over anything having to do with soft treatment of terrorists, even aiding and abetting them (like leaving the border wide open for them to walk in)
Secondly, if the video was ordered destroyed, then the assumption should be that the accused did indeed do the murdering,we have enoughlive witnesses to that effect. Death penalty should definitely be sought.
Probably policy after the prison fiasco in Iraq.
Something is seriously wrong with the way this is written.
Noncommissioned Officers have always been able to issue lawful orders.
See, that’s the mistake all the witnesses made - they said he was yelling “Allahu Akbar!”, proving this was an Islamic Jihad incident.
Actually, there was a LONG line at the commissary, and the guy snapped. He was actually yelling
“all a’ you at the snack bar!”.
It had nothing to do with Islam at all - just a long wait.
From what I can discern, yes it does.
Wow, just wow.
I posted this on another thread a couple of days ago. Here again is a case of some are more equal than others.
If you are Scott Peterson you are charged with murder in the first degree for the pregnant woman and murder in the second degree for the unborn child.
If you are a soldier of allah, such as Nidal Malik Hasan, hiding out in the US Army awaiting an opportunity to commit islamic jihad, then the unborn child of the pregnant woman who was murdered is never mentioned and he is only charged with massacring 13 people instead of 14.
Everyone knows that the 1st Ammendment doesn’t apply to the military...
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.