Military Judge Chooses to Protect Obama From Dead Soldiers?


The Judge is Colonel Tara Osborn – who, if you remember replaced the previous judge (Col. Gregory Gross) because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces said “he appeared biased against Hasan.” Col. Gross was the judge who wanted to forcefully eradicate Hasan’s stupid beard. Now Osborn, the new kinder, gentler judge, is going to block the prosecution from entering any proof of motive into the record.

From Breitbart

Judge Col. Tara Osborn blocked evidence from Maj. Nidal Hasan’s trial that prosecutors said would explain his motive for opening fire at Fort Hood.

Prosecutors wanted to introduce evidence that showed Hasan believed he had a “jihad duty” to murder his fellow soldiers. Eighty witnesses testified for the prosecution, but they wanted to explain his motive this week. From the Associated Press:

Osborn barred any reference Hasan Akbar, a Muslim soldier sentenced to death for attacking fellow soldiers in Kuwait during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prosecutors wanted to suggest that Hasan, an American-born Muslim, carried out a “copycat” attack.

But the judge said introducing such material would “only open the door to a mini-trial” of Akbar and result in a “confusion of issues, unfair prejudice, waste of time and undue delay.”

The judge said prosecutors also couldn’t introduce three emails, ruling that the needed redactions would make them irrelevant. The contents of the emails weren’t disclosed, but the FBI has said Hasan sent numerous emails starting in December 2008 to Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Islamic cleric killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

Read More

So revealing motive would be a “confusion” and “unfair prejudice”? Why? Well, if the Obama administration wishes to protect itself and the title of “workplace violence” then motive – which is obvious in this case – must not be allowed. If the motive of anti-American Islamist revenge was made part of the record, and Hasan found guilty, then the Obama administration would be forced to acknowledge the act as terrorism (which is not PC) and the surviving victims and family members would then be eligible for military benefits.

The judge seems to be acting to protect the Obama definition of events instead of the memory of those who were slaughtered and victimized by a rabid terrorist.

I’m not an attorney or a JAG so maybe there is some legal technicality I’m missing – let me know.