Should the military court deprive Nidal Hasan of martyrdom?

I do not agree with feeding him pork chops, but I would agree to life in prison.

Whichever is cheaper.

Absolutely. Life with no possibility of parole for him. Putting him to death would make him a martyr in the eyes of his fellow Islamic radicals.

@marinelife

Why not? at least he would have a choice. Eat it, or starve. His choice.

“By any reasonable moral standards, he should be killed ASAP.”
The death penalty is immoral.

@ragingloli

Only if the executioner is fallible and/or corrupt. In most cases, your point is taken.

Hasan has admitted his guilt and invited execution. And the evidence supports his “defense”.

The moral principle changes in that case.

If the law says he should die, then he should be treated no different than anyone else. If the state dosen’t [redacted] him because it is what he wanted, they make a mockery of the law. McVeigh wanted to die and he got it; give it to this man also.

I want to feed Scott Roeder aborted fetuses since he is Christian nutjob. He shot a guy in the head that was doing his job.

@Hypocrisy_Central
It’s not the state. It is a military court. Different animal.

^ Give it to him anyhow.

@johnpowell
I think I understand what you are trying to say.

But I also must confess I am not so sure either.

I give you the benefit of the doubt that there is a connection between your curious statement, and the fate of an Islamist, anti-enlightenment, psychopathic murdering enemy of the USA, whom , if he had his way, would make your domestic agenda irrelevant.

I am only somewhat sure I get it. But I guess that is just the way it goes.

The only thing that matters is that you get it.

Religious nuts are religious nuts. Both sides have them..

That is all I am saying.

That and I’m saying you probably didn’t call for the same treatment of Scott Roeder for the murder of George Tiller.

@johnpowell
So are you saying that Scott Roeder should (or should not?) be deprived of martyrdom as described by Islamist psychotics who would love to nuke New York City in the name of The Prophet?
Or not?
I admit, I am a provincial, Midwestern slow study, but I do not see the connection.

What I believe @johnpowell is trying to say, and I apologize if I represent you unfairly @john , is that enlightenment thinking tries to emphasize logic, underlying causes, and rational, non-emotional responses to misfortune, in an effort to respond to the world in ways to minimize suffering and further the well-being of all mankind.

He was trying to highlight your lust for revenge and emotional response as obviously anti-enlightenment attitudes, and very similar to the way Islamic fundamentalists behave.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought

That’s me-
Lusting for revenge, anti-enlightenment Neanderthal, and so very similar to Islamist brutes.
Thanks for the opportunity for introspection.
Or not.

@josie I knew as I typed it you would not engage in introspection. Still I had to try.

The funny thing is that even though all the right-wing bullet heads howl for military tribunals for terrorists instead of trials in the Federal Court system, it’s actually a lot tougher to get a death penalty sentence in the Military Justice System. There are no mandatory minimums. Sentencing is up to the Jury alone, and any single juror saying no to the death penalty means it cannot be assigned. So I’ve had my say about what I think would make Hassan suffer more, but my say makes no never mind. It’s in the hands of the Jury now, and even though defense attorneys are not allowed to tell jurors this, jury nullification is a much more common outcome in Military Tribunals than in our Federal Courts.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought pretty much nailed my intent. Thanks.

I would have him share a cell with Bradley Manning. It would piss both of them off.

I think lawyers should appeal his case on the grounds that he was insane and try to have his sentence commuted to life.

“By any reasonable moral standards, he should be killed ASAP.”

I see that we have different ideas about ‘reasonable moral standards’. Quelle surprise! In my opinion, the death penalty is barbaric and only shows we are no better than the killer. In this case, not killing him would serve two purposes: It would show that our justice system is more humane than the man who committed the crimes and it would deprive him of martyrdom. And no, I would not feed the man pork.

He should be sent to Leavenworth where he would break big rocks into little rocks until he dies of natural causes.

@1TubeGuru Welcome to Fluther. I totally agree.

Yeah @1tube welcome & I agree with you! Not all Republicans sanction the death penalty, this one especially.

@augustlan
The death penalty is morally appropriate in some cases. Unfortunately it is administered by corrupt and fallible politicians. Until the process is incorruptible, the death penalty should be suspended.
So let him sit in his wheel chair, and feed him sausage.

@josie Obviously, we have different ideas about what is morally appropriate, too. I don’t think it’s ever okay to kill someone as a punishment. Nor do I think it’s morally appropriate to use a particular food as a punishment. That isn’t justice…it’s spite.

If what he gets is spite, in return for wanton Islamist fanatic mass murder, he still comes out ahead.