Judge orders accused Fort Hood shooter to have his beard shaved
Source: CNN
A judge has ordered that the beard of Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of fatally shooting 13 people at Fort Hood, be forcibly shaved ahead of his upcoming military trial, base spokesman Tyler Broadway said Thursday.
Col. Gregory Gross issued the order, which will likely trigger an appeal that would further delay a case that has dragged on since the 2009 mass shooting.
Hasan's attorney had filed an appeal when Gross threatened to order the shaving, but the appeals court said it wouldn't issue a decision until the shaving was actually ordered. Thursday's order by Gross opens the door for that appeal.
The last time he was in court, Hasan told the judge, "Your honor, in the name of almighty Allah, I am a Muslim. I believe that my religion requires me to wear a beard."
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/06/justice/fort-hood-trial/index.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MADem
(135,425 posts)The guy was fine with being clean shaven before he decided to shoot up the joint. Playing the Religion Card now is horseshit.
He's lying about his religion, too. That "beard" thing is not a mandate, any more than a prohibition about mixing fabrics, or burning offerings on altars, is a mandate of christian religions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How is his bearded face going to affect his trial?
cstanleytech
(26,303 posts)How is him being required to be clean shaven going to affect his trial?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but it will infringe on HIS practice of HIS religion.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)And practice his religion.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the military can administratively discharge him for, at the very least, insubordination, then try him, then execute him as so many wish.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I'm sure he'll be executed. I don't approve of capital punishment, but it's a fact that he'll be put to death.
alp227
(32,037 posts)End of story. No religious exemptions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)trumps the U.S. Constitution?
When'd that happen. I must have missed that one, too.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Even the ones explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The Army decided that facial hair could interfere with the duties of soldiers, and the courts have upheld that position.
He wasn't forced to enlist. When you enlist, you temporarily give up a lot of your basic freedoms.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)First, under strict scrutiny analysis, the regulation must be related a legitimate government purpose (i.e., as you have correctly identified, interference with the duties of a soldier might be one of them) AND there must be no less offensive alternative than the regulation.
Second, as posted in this thread, that argument fails because the military already makes excepts for soldiers (i.e., Sikhs) that ARE performing the duties of a soldier ... how can they refuse a Constitutional exception for someone, in prison, and therefore not performing the duties of a soldier?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Whether you can present a coherent argument against the restriction or not.
Second, as posted in this thread, that argument fails because the military already makes excepts for soldiers (i.e., Sikhs) that ARE performing the duties of a soldier ... how can they refuse a Constitutional exception for someone, in prison, and therefore not performing the duties of a soldier?
Sounds reasonable, but the exception for Sikhs is established policy. I believe there is also such an exception for Orthodox Jews. There is no such policy for Muslims that I am aware of.
Perhaps Hassan can take the issue to the courts after his murder trial.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)My theory IS the Constitutional analysis (i.e., the law) of such controversies.
I agree that "in reality all rights are subject to restriction" ... but such restrictions are subject to Constitutional analysis.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)If you are willing to work for free, perhaps you can assist me in preparing a suit against the state of California for infringing on my right to own a machine gun. I'll have to file in forma pauperis because I need some expensive dental work.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)think that's Constitutional or not. They give up their right to Free Speech, and agree their appearance will adhere to military code.
Can an enlisted member sport a brink pink mohawk? It's free expression, right? HOW MANY OF THEM DO YOU SEE? I am an Army brat, and I can tell you right now that you are wrong.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Many of the Special Ops forces need to be able to blend in with the population, so they are allowed to grow beards and have longer hair.
So there ARE exceptions the military is willing to make.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)The authority for the UCMJ derives from Article 1, sec. 8, clause 14, and therefore, while soldiers do not lose all constitutional protections, they can be restricted. For example, in the military I can own literature from the KKK, but I cannot be a member of the KKK.
Second, application of 10 USC 774 allows him to wear religious items as authorized by his Secretary, but Army Reg 670-1 is pretty clear--no beards except for medical reasons.
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf
Third--having a beard would prejudice him with the members who will hear his court martial, and who are well-aware of regulations. They would know he was in violation of code.
Fourth--downthread, you want to know why he can't be discharged, then tried. Well, that would violate his constitutional rights--the military court does have jurisdiction over you once you have left the service, even for acts you did while in service. (Quarles.)
He gets shaved. Better that the judge commits a 1st amendment violation which won't overturn a criminal conviction, than a violation that would, such as a DP or EP one.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not that I agree or do not have counter-arguments, but because I would be parsing and because I am tired of discussing this.
Thanks.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The judge here is actually attempting to reduce the possibility of prejudicial effect that would be caused by letting him keep the beard.
It seems to me the Defendant is attempting to lay a trap for appealable error.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)the military puts lots of restrictions on your rights.
You want to freely express yourself? Be sure to tell your drill sergeant that it's your right to say what you want and dress how you want and if he says anything about it he's oppressing you and that hurts your feelings.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The drill sargeants lawful options do not include forcible holding your close shut, or forcibly dressing you.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)that's part of the deal.
You were never in the military or knew anyone who was, were you?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)the answer is "Yes, it does"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I took the oath to defend the Constitution, and fully understood that it didn't apply to me. Those is uniform answer only to the UCMJ. That is just the way t is.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)I do NOT have free speech, freedom of expression in uniform. My 4th amendment rights do not exist in uniform.
All branches are under UCMJ. I can speak specifically of the Army. If you are not in the army, you should not speculate so wildly about its own laws, rules and regulations.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You continue to have a 1st amendment to say whatever you wish ... You do not, however, have a right to say what you want AND remain in the military.
This is the distinctive point.
Old Troop
(1,991 posts)limits many of the rights enjoyed by American civilians.
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)Maj. Hassan freely chose to limit some of his freedoms and to be governed according the the US Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
After he gets out of the military, he can let that beard sport as wild as he wants until then, he may not.
On Edit: US Army regs with regards to permissible haircuts and facial hair.
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf see page 27
(2) Male haircuts will conform to the following standards.
(a) The hair on top of the head must be neatly groomed. The length and bulk of the hair may not be excessive or
present a ragged, unkempt, or extreme appearance. The hair must present a tapered appearance. A tapered appearance
is one where the outline of the soldier’s hair conforms to the shape of the head, curving inward to the natural
termination point at the base of the neck. When the hair is combed, it will not fall over the ears or eyebrows, or touch
the collar, except for the closely cut hair at the back of the neck. The block-cut fullness in the back is permitted to a
moderate degree, as long as the tapered look is maintained. In all cases, the bulk or length of hair may not interfere
with the normal wear of headgear (see para 1–8a(1)(a), above) or protective masks or equipment. Males are not
authorized to wear braids, cornrows, or dreadlocks (unkempt, twisted, matted, individual parts of hair) while in uniform
or in civilian clothes on duty. Hair that is clipped closely or shaved to the scalp is authorized.
(b) Males will keep sideburns neatly trimmed. Sideburns may not be flared; the base of the sideburn will be a cleanshaven,
horizontal line. Sideburns will not extend below the lowest part of the exterior ear opening.
(c) Males will keep their face clean-shaven when in uniform or in civilian clothes on duty. Mustaches are permitted;
if worn, males will keep mustaches neatly trimmed, tapered, and tidy. Mustaches will not present a chopped off or
bushy appearance, and no portion of the mustache will cover the upper lip line or extend sideways beyond a vertical
line drawn upward from the corners of the mouth (see figure 1–1). Handlebar mustaches, goatees, and beards are not
authorized. If appropriate medical authority prescribes beard growth, the length required for medical treatment must be
specified. For example, “The length of the beard will not exceed 1?4 inch” (see TB MED 287). Soldiers will keep the
growth trimmed to the level specified by appropriate medical authority, but they are not authorized to shape the growth
into goatees, or “Fu Manchu” or handlebar mustaches.
AR
cstanleytech
(26,303 posts)and regulations regarding being clean shaven.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)do not have to ask permission to exercise our Constitutional rights ... sometimes we have to sue to secure them; but we do not have to ask.
cstanleytech
(26,303 posts)and clearly he had no problems with shaving for years before he committed the murders so the whole "its against my religion" kinda falls flat.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm done!
obamanut2012
(26,085 posts)And, actually, you do in some other professions, too.
Ridiculous line of reasoning. It's the military. AND he is a prisoner.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Under which you paid me $500 for being silent for 24 hours.
And then, on the appointed day, I sing the National Anthem and recite the Constitution.
You can sue my ass for not being silent.
Among the rights you have is the right to contract.
Under our contract, I did NOT have the right to sing or speak that day, and I owe you the $500 back.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)uniform regulations make no allowances for that. Just like there are DoD regulations that say you can't cross a picket line to work as a scab or protest in uniform.
Based on my experiences with the British Air Force, the Brits would be more lenient. I knew an RAF officer that was a Sikh, and the turban was a nonissue to them.
obamanut2012
(26,085 posts)Beards, etc.
http://www.army.mil/article/36339/sikh-soldiers-allowed-to-serve-retain-their-articles-of-faith/
Good article on it.
Photo:
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)sometimes learning your information is outdated is a good thing.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)He is still in the military, and will be judged by a panel of officers.
If he is allowed to keep the beard, he could later claim ineffective assistance of counsel, on the ground that his lawyer advised him to keep the beard, but having the beard was prejudicial to him.
It is not unusual for criminal defendants to ask and receive odd things, and then turn around and claim that they did not receive a fair trial as a consequence of the very thing they themselves asked for or did.
Some defendants use this as a strategy.
Regardless of what this defendant may be planning, he is of exceptional intelligence and knowledge in the area of psychology. That he would use this intelligence and knowledge to engage in some form of manipulation of the process and those in it, does not strike me as unusual at all.
The judge is focused on providing a fair trial and reducing appealable errors.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,015 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the military code of conduct is punishable by forced compliance; rather than, discharge?
When'd that happen?
alp227
(32,037 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not release from custody!
alp227
(32,037 posts)as he's being tried for a military crime, even if discharged.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)pasto76
(1,589 posts)in some cases, stuff like, the defendant not being allowed to see, hear, or know evidence against him is normal.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The U.S. Constitution is the over-arching frame work for all law in the U.S.
Though I have not practiced before a military court, I am well versed in Constitutional law.
obamanut2012
(26,085 posts)About how military hearings and military courts work.
That was the whole point about Mary Surratt and her codefendants: civilians cannot be tried by a military court, but they were.
Military personnel do NOT have the same rights under military law as civilians have under civilian law.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)You may rely on it.
Angleae
(4,488 posts)The military couldn't try him, he wouldn't be in the military and because they've already charged him, the judge would have no choice but to dismiss the charges. The federal courts couldn't take it up because he's already been charged at the federal level.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,015 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the defendant can be tried in abstencia; or can be tried without stepping into the court room.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,015 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Says you!
Who are you to question someone else's sincerity of their faith?
We are trending dangerously close to the extremism that we abhor.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,015 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what you did yesterday shall bind you to today ... without regard for what you did in the intervening period. Right?
Does not not matter that between the time he did the shooting and now, he has not shaved ... and that apparently was not a problem until he was to appear in court>
Doesn't the military's sudden insistence lead you to believe that this is more about the exercise of authority?
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,015 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and abroad?
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,015 posts)Missycim
(950 posts)Foreign and domestic.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,015 posts)obamanut2012
(26,085 posts)Which attorneys generally know how to spell.
And, that is unconstitutional, as you well know. Precedence for that.
obamanut2012
(26,085 posts)About time. Shave away.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)obamanut2012
(26,085 posts)Just like a prisoner in a civilian prison, he has to abide by regs. Military personnel are not allowed to wear beards, except for some Sikhs that have been given prior approval before formal enlistment.
Military personnel. Prisoner. He doesn't get to choose what he wants to do.
Service members can be charged and convicted for not obeying regs, btw, not just discharged.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)as such military discipline applies... that includes clean shaven... that is why. If this was a civilian trial, whatever.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,015 posts)obamanut2012
(26,085 posts)He is not allowed to wear that beard. Against regs.
Red Mountain
(1,736 posts)
fficial&biw=1664&bih=889&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=F5G7GhZaVGLvsM:&imgrefurl=http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/sikh-soldier-completes-us-army-training-with-turban-on-65640&docid=sJRb_mph4IhggM&imgurl=&w=295&h=200&ei=fC9JUIq8HqqM2gXv5ICQBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=465&vpy=180&dur=34&hovh=160&hovw=236&tx=173&ty=46&sig=118056779401259670177&page=1&tbnh=153&tbnw=226&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i
9
He's making an issue of it and the Judge sees it as a challenge to his authority.
It is.......but there are larger implications.
We're better than that....or we damn well better be if we want to pick our fights.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sometimes ... rage blinds; even justifiable rage.
obamanut2012
(26,085 posts)Because Sikh men HAVE to wear the beard and turban and ceremonial knife. It is a fundamental article of their faith, unlike Islam, which doesn't require a beard.
The military, at ant=y time, can say no, you cannot join.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I recognize the anger and sentiment surround this trial.
What he did deserves to be punished ... but that punishment, should never include forcing someone to violate their conscience.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)evidence of aggravation to be applied to sentencing, how is what led him to act, pertinent to his trial?
He is not being tried for what he thought; but rather, what he did.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)One way or another, in his twisted mind of extremist thought, the same reason he doesn't want to shave his beard is the same reason he killed people.
I condemn ALL extremist religion, and refuse to kowtow to murderers who pervert religious beliefs to gain some sort of legal foothold.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...would have no meaning.
Motivation is always relevant in criminal trials. Malice aforethought may be the only thing that makes killing a murder as opposed to manslaughter. Premeditation is the difference between two degrees of murder.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Doesn't that go to aggravating elements of a crime; rather than, whether the crime was committed?
spayneuter
(134 posts)Why are you defending this piece of shit?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I support the U.S. Constitution. 
But don't get me, or my argument twisted. I am not defending him from being tried for the crimes for which he is accused. Hell no!
He is accused of killing and wounding a bunch of people ... He should be tried for that. Does the fact that these people were soldiers matter? Does the fact that he is an Islamist matter? I don't really know, but I hope not, though it appears at the root of many of those arguing.
My defense is rooting in my refusal to sit back and watch some butt chapped "Judge" trample on someone's Constitutional rights, even under these F'd up circumstances.
And face it ... this is all about a pissing match where one side is relying on legitimate/organizational authority and the other side is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)He's not defending the heinous acts Hassan committed, he's saying that Hassan should be allowed to keep his beard if it's in accordance with his religion. I personally think he should have to shave it.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I do not see any reason to support this P.O.S. at all.
Try...just try to imagine you had just shot and killed a bunch of people. And after that... you claim that your rights are infringed because they want you to shave your beard??!
That is deeply offensive.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)He killed 13 people and wounded 32 others. People like that have no conscience.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)term for the practice of his religion.
And please don't go to the "killing Americans/infidels is the practice of Islam" thing.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)He's stalling.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But should we err, constitutional, on the side of caution ... especially when the only thing lost by doing so is time?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It would be nice to get him killed at the lowest possible cost or incarcerated for life, but those aren't going to happen.
I have accepted this.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But okay.
spayneuter
(134 posts)
They're just as homicidal as the crazies in the Xian bible.
obamanut2012
(26,085 posts)spayneuter
(134 posts)thing most contemporary TRVE BELIEVERS don't much care about any more, along with the abominations of eating shellfish and wearing clothes made of different materials. Where is the line beyond which some random religion's sacrament doesn't have to be respected? Marijuana and Peyote are important elements of some religions, which unfortunately for them, don't have a hell of a lot of political power. What if I invent a church that mandates walking in public with my penis hanging out and urinating on things that are yellow in color? Is there some rational reason to prohibit that?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)as it is against removing a few hairs.
Oh well, priorities.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is not about him ... It's about US.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)you will be held to the exact same standards as everyone else.
And I can live with that.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)And by people I mean the judge. Beards don't matter. Forcibly shaving a prisoner DOES matter. It's a BIG fucking deal.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sometimes ... rage blinds; even justifiable rage.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and which all soldiers in the US military are held to should he be exempt because he claims his religion forbids it?
How is treating everyone the same discrimination but making exemptions for certain religions not?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in the context of discrimination.
It might open your eyes.
Hint: treating people "the same" is not the same as treating people fairly/equitably.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)I invite all of to enlist and actually serve this country. There is better than a 99% chance most of you commenting on this are not veterans.
Enlist, and then try and exercise your assumptions, speculations and "accomodations" once you are actually IN uniform. Then come back and tell us how it all went.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that the practice differs is extra-judicial; but that does not change the constitutional application.
"accommations" are allowed in the military, just as in civilian life, on a continuing basis. (see: beard allowances and Sikhs)
spayneuter
(134 posts)You're arguing for a particular exception for a particular religion, most of us are saying fuck the guy, he's no better than some asshole who takes a job as a pharmacist then refuses to dispense certain medications because it damages the tender sensibilities of his idiotic faith.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)people who are legal experts and do have a knowledge of the military say another thing.
I'll go with the later.
Hint: treating people "the same" is not the same as treating people fairly/equitably.
So the law shouldn't be blind? It should make exceptions for people based on their religion?
Who the hell cares about an other person's beard except as an exercise of institutional power? Which is wholly irrelevant in this case because the man is incarcerated and already subject to institutional power. The guy murdered a bunch of people and will be tried, as he should be. It disgusts me as an American and a human to see this use of power for the sake of power. The objection people have is not about this particular man. Leave aside the religion, military and even Constitutional issues. The government using its power to force a guy to do something as meaningless to the process as shaving his beard is just creepy. I used to think we were better than this, but that was a long time ago.
spayneuter
(134 posts)(it does)...and I am not particularly picking on Islam, I find ALL religion to be vile, delusional and contrary to the good of humans. http://www.godisimaginary.com/i7.htm
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and ensuring Hasan has every possible chance of a fair trial.
His peers in the military will judge him. Since its against military regs for a soldier to have a beard, Hasan having a beard will send the wrong message (that he's now a religious extremist) to his peers and that he won't follow standard regulations.
When you join the military you sign away a great deal of your rights, including the right to keep your own grooming standards. You must adhere to the standard in the military or face disciplinary procedures. Hasan knows that. He abided by that for many years without a problem.
Wearing a beard now will be prejudicial to his case and the Army is going to avoid the appearance of that at all costs, including forcible shaving.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)His beard would prejudice his "jury"; but not more than dark skin or internal genitalia in most jurisdictions.
cstanleytech
(26,303 posts)Of course I could be wrong but seeing your posts in this thread on the subject I do not believe that my conclusion is wrong.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to believe that I would agree that the prosecution's strategy would be to shave Hasan, even forcibly, in order to limit any claim that his appearance prejudiced the jury? That's standard strategy. I've argued jury prejudice, literally hundreds of time ... and I know how to defend the claim.
But I fear, their solution to one problem (i.e., jury bias) will create a much bigger problem (i.e., violation(s) of the Constitution).
cstanleytech
(26,303 posts)doesnt share your opinion so thats why I doubt you when you said "I would probably agree".
Edit: And btw http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/military_law/military_us_constitution.htm
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)Yeah, guess what Nidal? Your religion also requires that you don't go around murdering your comrades in the name of Allah.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)DUTY and MISSION come first. Beards are forbidden in a court martial. End of debate.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)He has A LOT OF NERVE to being acting that way. He does no favors to muslims, either.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Literally.
Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)When he committed the crime he didn't have the beard but now he knows that with the beard witnesses will have difficulty identifying him.
He doesn't care about his religion, he just wants to screw with the prosecution's case.
neovente
(24 posts)alp227
(32,037 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and a high-alcohol-content after-shave.
Fuck that murderous pig-fucker.
indypaul
(949 posts)and as such must obey lawful orders of his superior officers. He is
under the jurisdiction of the authority that convened his courts martial
and as such must first obey those orders then appeal them if he feels
they are wrong. He cannot, due to his faith, pick and choose what
orders he will or will not obey any more than he can select the menu
at the mess hall. My only problem with this matter is why has it taken
this long to bring him to trial?
