Let’s not forget, Lieutenant General Cone was the Commanding General of III Corps and Fort Hood on 5 November 2009. Shortly after the tragic shooting incident, LTG Cone met and participated with the Commander-in-Chief Barak Hussein Obama in the memorial service at Fort Hood. Both LTG Cone and President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the attendees. Subsequently, LTG Cone directed a Survey of all personnel – civilian and military – at Fort Hood, attempting to determine if and/or how the events of 5 November may have affected them.
Against this background, it is incredulous that Colonel Morgan M. Lamb, a mid-level commander in the chain of command could determine, as he did on 26 February 10, that there was “no probable relevance or necessity of LTG Cone’s testimony.” Query – did Colonel Lamb attend the memorial service himself? What communications, if any, has he had with the Commanding General concerning this case?
This matter highlights the difficulty presented when low-level commanders are asked to make decisions that could significantly impact on their superior officers. Clearly, military authorities superior in rank to LTG Cone need to weigh in and reverse this senseless decision.
![bookmark](http://forthoodattorney.com/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/images/blank.gif" height=){kind=small}
Sir:
It would be a pleasure to read and follow your blog as the case for Maj. Hasan unfolds. That said, I find it disturbing that you refer to our president and, by extension as a retired military professional, commander-in-chief as “Barak Hussein Obama.” This seems to show your political subjectivity and does little to secure your credibility as an objective professional tasked with defending a man who many already view as an unhinged jihadist who should be summarily executed. Maj. Hasan deserves his day in court, but by misspelling the president’s name and insisting on repeating his middle name, you appear to be of the same mind as Maj. Hasan and his fellow compatriot terrorists. Perhaps you are, but I’m not sure that will help in the defense of your client, either in the court of public opinion or in the judicial system.
In other words, sir, please show some respect and refer to him as President Obama, President Barack Obama, or simply the President.
In the meantime, I hope our government will be forthcoming with materials and witnesses during your team’s discovery phase.
[Translate]
Very well said, Mr./Ms. Kincaid. I had the same reaction. I absolutely support any accused criminal’s right to representation and a fair trial, but Mr. Galligan’s emphasis on our president’s middle name is offensive and hurtful to his credibility — and thus detrimental to his client.
[Translate]
Is that not his legal and official name? What is offensive in calling someone by their legal name which is required in law?
[Translate]
Re J. M. Kincaid:
Please stick to the topic at hand. This is another weak and lame attempt to distract attention from the true matter of this site- Did Hasan commit this crime or not?
There is nothing wrong with calling the president by his name. They certainly did that with the last several presidents. It almost sounds like you feel there is something wrong with the president’s name. Please keep the topic on Hasan and not every officer in the military.
[Translate]
Did your client willfully shoot and kill 13 people? Yes. That is all that needs to be said about the subject. That single fact is the case – cut and dried.
And, while your attempt to divert attention from this fundamental question-and-answer might be explained under the guise of “defense attorney,” this blog that you have created seems, at best, more set to call attention to yourself – a shameless act of self-promotion – rather than raising any information that might alter that basic, aforementioned fact.
Don’t waste the public’s time or money by dragging out this case so that you can achieve the level of fame that you, apparently, as evidenced by this blog, feel you deserve. Your client is a murderer. You know it, and so does the rest of the world. Stop trying to market yourself and claim your “fifteen minutes of fame” off of the deaths of the unfortunate souls who were at the wrong end of your client’s weapon.
[Translate]
You seem to forget that several years ago I defended a soldier who was charged with killing two Afghan detainees. Then, as now, I simply fought for a soldier to have a fair trial. Am I correct that you also think I was wrong to defend the soldier who was charged with killing detainees? I suspect not ….. i.e. you sense of justice is purely situational. I don’t have the luxury of that convenience….. for me, the Constitution is designed to protect all of us. Nuff said.
[Translate]
No, I think he should be entitled to a legitimate defense and I have said that in comments at the Dallas Morning website as well. You are doing your job. That is how our system works. Further you should be respected as a a veteran yourself.
My point is that the Constitution guarantees a speedy trial. The public should be entitled to the same.
Here’s the deal. This man is a terrorist. This man is a mass murderer. This man is a traitor.
What is the degree of confidence in this man’s guilt? What is the degree of confidence that this man is not a murderer but the shooting was in truth just an accident? What is the degree of confidence that we got the right guy and this is not a case of mistaken identity?
The end result is that this man will be convicted and executed. Let’s get this trial going.
And, yes, I think you have the toughest job in the county. If you need someone to stretch the rope or to serve on the firing squad, let me know. I will be happy to volunteer my services to my country again.
[Translate]
lawyers are rotten meat
[Translate]
uphill gig! hang in!
[Translate]
I am disgusted by your statements that the US Military is somehow trying to stonewall your defense of an obviosly guilty man. This man walks in and kills scores of soldiers when they are most vulnerabl and unarmed. As a former soldier ( once stationed at Ft. Hood ) I as do Im sure a great deal of Americans, have nothing but hatred for this man. He will be found guilty and he will receive the death penalty. If you think this murderous, vile existance deserves chance at a long life then you sir are in denial. You are disallusioned and I hope that the Judge in the case finds that this blog violates his orders and forces some sense of discipline apon your otherwise arrogent behavior. Hasan deserves to die. No matter what he has to say nothing will take from the fact that he opened fire on unarmed soldiers in an attempt to kill as many as he could before he himself was slain. That proves intent and will allow for a capital punishment.
P.S. This blog is and I believe you know this, will only stir more emotions within the community you intend to reach. I think you are intentionally trying to make it as though he can’t get a fair hearing. I hope as I said earlier that a judge reads this and assigns some punishment towards you and your defense.
[Translate]
This criminal should have been hung by now. What is the hold up?
[Translate]
It’s called due process, genius. Read the Constitution some time.
[Translate]
You read the Constitution. We are also guaranteed a speedy trial.
[Translate]
Tough luck, buy your client a potty chair.
[Translate]
To answer your post that you sent me replying to the comment that you have conveniently opted to moderate out, my concern is ABSOLUTELY situational. YOUR defendant murdered 13 people in this particular situation. What else is there to be said about that? This basic fact doesn’t even take into account the others he injured – I’m strictly speaking about those who are DEAD by his hand. He murdered those people, and he did so INTENTIONALLY, he PLANNED his attack and was FULLY AWARE of his actions as he carried out his plan. Period, end – of – story. Constitutional rights? He spat on the Constitution when he suited up in a United States military uniform and then carried out his heinous act on fellow military members.
If it were your wife/daughter/son/brother/sister who was murdered by this animal, would you be so quick to use the cover of “ensuring the defendant’s right to a fair trial?” What a cop-out. Simply by creating this blog, you’re showing your hand – the only thing you’re trying to ensure is your chance at a big, fat book deal.
[Translate]
If only the Constitution really did that.
Your client most certainly has the right to a defense. But you’re not really looking for love are you?
I do agree that there’s not nearly enough being said about Army/government oversight:
http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/03/fort-hood-update-nidal-hasans-defense.html
[Translate]
Not to make you uncomfortable…but I am agreeing with you.
[Translate]
Here’s a thought. Lets have a lottery. People can put in $100 bucks per ticket. The winner of the lottery get to put a bullet in the coward they call Hasan. The money could then be split up among the victims of this terrorist.
[Translate]
In 1770, John Adams — a Boston lawyer sympathetic to the cause of independence for the colonies — volunteered to represent the British soldiers accused of committing the “Boston Massacre,” in which five unarmed local civilians had been killed, unquestionably by the soldiers’ musket-fire. Adams, who just six years later became a leading revolutionary leader and ten years after that America’s second President, later said that his defense of the British soldiers, in the face of widespread popular disapproval, was the “greatest service I ever rendered my country.” Every accused person is entitled to a fair trial. What mitigation of guilt may exist (perhaps psychiatric) can only be determined in court, and only if Hasan has a fearless advocate by his side. If there is no such mitigation, then so be it. But if there is, then only a fair trial can bring forward the whole truth and reach a just result that upholds American values.
[Translate]
You need to learn your history before you use it to emphasize your point. The British soldiers were surrounded by a mob of 300 to 400 rioters that were looking for any excuse to fight the redcoats. John Adams defended them because he believed in the rule of law, not because even “bad guys” deserve to be treated fairly. His defense of the Brits was to show the Brits that the Americans were intent on preserving freedoms. He was doing legally and maturely what the mob was doing illegally and immaturely. Does the Accused deserve a fair trial? Absolutely. Is Mr. Galligan grandstanding? Sure seems like it. The civilians reading this (and even most of the military personnel) will not understand that many of the decisions made along the way to trial will be made by commanders who possess no legal training. They will rely on the Judge Advocates assigned to their units for advice and make the best calls they can. COL Lamb is probably just doing what he thinks is right, and likely does not even understand the finer points of Mr. Galligan’s arguments on this blog. The military justice system is based on the notion of commanders keeping order in their ranks and therefore the varying levels of command possess varying levels of authority. Even though lawyers are there to make sure rights are protected and procedures are followed, it is commanders who make the final say. (Which is 99% of the time just approval of the military judges’ decisions)
By the way, am I the only one that noticed the defense request for this Mitigation Specialist included an estimate of $30,000 in fees to cover the INITIAL assistance of said Specialist. And that they plan to retain her for future use? That’s taxpayer money.
[Translate]
What you overlook is the following -
- Colonel Lamb is receiving his legal advice from the prosecutors;
- The Army has brought in several prosecutors from Headquarters, Department of the Army, to prosecute this case;
- The estimated cost associated with retaining the Defense Mitigation Specialist pales in comparsion to the money being spent by the prosecution in this case (including the recent TDY of several prosecutors to a distant base so the could watch another military capital case);
- The cost of retaining the services of the Defense Mitigation Specialist is not any greater than the similar costs associated with her appearance in other courts-martial;
- The US Army paid for defense mitigation specialists in the pending capital murder cases of United States v. Hennis (now being tried at Fort Bragg) and United States v. Davila (now being tried at Fort Lewis).
In short – nothing being requested by the Defense in US v. Hasan is different from that which has been requested in any other death penalty styled court-martial. The only difference is that these same requests are being denied in the Hasan case – and I can only conclude that the reason for the discriminatory action in Hasan is because the Defendant is Muslim.
[Translate]
Another interesting legal tidbit – you should be aware that the reversal rate in military capital murder cases is about 80% -Why the significant reversal rate? Because commanders like Colonel Lamb deny legitimate Defense requests for assistance or appropriate relief.
And finally, your point about commanders having the final say is also misplaced. In many cases, as here, they are nothing more than “commanders of convenience” – i.e. they are signing whatever the prosecutors put in front of them. I guess that does not give you pause?
[Translate]
In response:
- Colonel Lamb is receiving his legal advice from the prosecutors;–is that not because he is the government representative, the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority, i.e. the “prosecution”?
- The Army has brought in several prosecutors from Headquarters, Department of the Army, to prosecute this case;–that’s because all the other ones are busy deploying and/or prosecuting the other soldiers in their units getting into trouble. And I thought it was only 2.
- The estimated cost associated with retaining the Defense Mitigation Specialist pales in comparsion to the money being spent by the prosecution in this case (including the recent TDY of several prosecutors to a distant base so the could watch another military capital case);–I don’t doubt this and I admit I just wanted to ruffle feathers. Moreover I just wanted to raise awareness that only in the military is the government willing to foot the bill for both prosecution and defense in the same trial.
- The cost of retaining the services of the Defense Mitigation Specialist is not any greater than the similar costs associated with her appearance in other courts-martial;– See previous comment
- The US Army paid for defense mitigation specialists in the pending capital murder cases of United States v. Hennis (now being tried at Fort Bragg) and United States v. Davila (now being tried at Fort Lewis).
In short – nothing being requested by the Defense in US v. Hasan is different from that which has been requested in any other death penalty styled court-martial. The only difference is that these same requests are being denied in the Hasan case – and I can only conclude that the reason for the discriminatory action in Hasan is because the Defendant is Muslim.– I think that is a pretty big logical leap. Perhaps you are right in that defense’s requests are being unjustly denied, but to state that it is based on the accused’s religion is unfounded. I would chalk it up to certain personnel who cannot handle the pressure of such a case on top of their normal workload and might not be taking enough time to really understand the requests that are coming their way. But that is just my assumption as well and do not base it in any real ascertained fact.
[Translate]
Some of the comments above bring to fore one of the problems which a free state faces when there is a person “obviously guilty” who himself faces a vindictive state and an unfair, unlevel playing field. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amdt (applicable in federal prosecutions) and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amdt (applicable in federal and state prosecutions) are separate but somewhat equal protections for any person who faces the power of the government to prosecute. A fair trial is what we are all entitled to–even if we are guilty as sin. Guilt determination is not the only aspect of a fair trial. There is the matter of the hangman. What did the White House know and when did they know it?
I would move to strike any witness whom we know to have talked to the government where those statements are not disclosed. I would challenge the gag order on appeal now. I would ask the court to gag every official of the United States, every military officer, every victim, from talking. Level playing field.
If it gets worse than what we are so far seeing then the lawyer should resign and make a public statement that no fair trial can be had so why am I here.
If there is mitigation evidence here the defendant is entitled to it.
[Translate]
MP Bastian – quite right. Thank you for your excellent point.
[Translate]
More endles BS. Give him a fair trial and let him prove he was in Miami that day. Let him put up his ‘reasonable defense’ defense. Ultimately, this murderer will be tried, convicted and executed.
The defense has had an adequate amount of time to prepare for trial.
As far as the actions of others, (the White House, the commanding general, etc.) that is just a weak and lame attempt to avoid answering the basic question. Did this man commit this crime?
Of course this man commited this crime.
It’s time for a fair trial and a legitimate opportunity for this guy to provide a true defense.
Then it will be time to convict and hang this guy.
[Translate]
The best outcome would be for your client to simply have the dignity to take his life. Period.
[Translate]
this lawyer has his mouth wrapped tight around terrorist XXXX.
i hope he gets the aids from it an chokes.
and his wife leaves him for the faggot he is.
choke galligan
[Translate]
How many other shooters were named in that report? How many were military special ops just following orders? Even the victims reported they thought it was a training exercise.
Have you read Pentagon’s declassified Operation Northwoods, the signed confession by the chairman joint chiefs of staff to the US military perping sniper attacks in USA and hiring enemy troops to attack US military bases?
Operation Northwoods
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html
Charges dismissed against accused sniper Clifford Clark, after a cop was subpoenaed to testify that another cop confessed to shooting a redlight camera in Knoxville TN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25wIadTDcXo
http://www.theknoxvillejournal.com/inside/pages/news/Accused-camera-shooter.html
http://piratenews.org
“I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks.”
—Usama bin Laden, CNN, “Bin Laden says he wasn’t behind attacks,” September 17, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/obl_int.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL34buPJJxc
“We’ve never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming.”
—Dick Cheney, “Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow”, March 29, 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb3fesK-4S4
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html
Afghan Prime Minister: No Afghan Involved In 9/11 Attacks
http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=100720090301
“The Israeli Defense Force is a 500-pound gorilla in Israel. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces [except for USS Liberty then blamed Egypt]. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management. MOSSAD: Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”
-Jedi Knights, SAMS US Army School of Advanced Military Studies, Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, “U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study,” 10 September 2001
http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.html
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/911timeline/2001/washingtontimes091001.html
Israeli attack on USS Liberty to blame Arab patsies
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=uss+liberty
http://www.gtr5.com
“The FBI has issued a BOLO on suspected terrorists driving a white delivery van from New York City to the Mexican border. The suspects are using Israeli passports. They are armed and dangerous.”
-Knox County TN Emergency 911 Dispatch, Sept 11, 2001, 11am EST
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0622-05.htm
http://september911surprise.piratenews.org
“Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center. Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.”
-FBI BOLO (“Be On Lookout”), 11 September 2001, 3:31 p.m., according to Bergen County Police Chief John Schmidig
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/12/WTC_Mysteries3.html
http://columbus.indymedia.org/node/13067
The first terrorist bombers arrested in USA on 9/11/2001 were Israeli Mossad says Fox News. There were over 500 of them, infiltrating US military bases and all police agencies. They were dressed as Muslims, “dancing in happiness” while watching and videotaping the World Trade Center explode. Despite FBI finding residue of explosives in their van, none of the Israelis were tortured to confess at Gitmo, and all were allowed to leave USA by Israeli US DOJ prosecutor Michael Chertoff who was then promoted to director US Dept of Homeland Security.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34250,00.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20065.htm
http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda/employer_of_the_dancing_israelis.htm
14 Israeli “art students” were living in World Trade Center Towers with forged Construction Passes, connection to Mossad spy ring infiltrating every US military base and police agency in USA, arrested and deported from USA after 9/11/2001:
http://www.rense.com/general87/14_1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edxYE9sZ5WI
[Translate]
Please post all court documents in the public record.
[Translate]
Appropriate court documents will be posted to this site.
[Translate]
palo, you show your ignorance of the US Constitution!
[Translate]
Peter G – I enjoyed and completely agree with your example of John Adams’s defense of the 5 British soldiers. I’d forgotten about that parallel and was pleased to see it here.
Sir, I have a concern I hope you will address. You believe that the exclusion of LTG Cone’s testimony is unacceptable. I will confess that I do not believe LTG Cone could add anything to your case, or even anything to the Prosecution’s. He was the Commanding General, but what could he add beyond the Lessons Learned from the incident? If the results of the survey are made available to the Court (and even then I really can’t see what evidentiary value they hold) then the General’s presence and/or testimony is irrelevant to the case. He did not personally conduct the survey or design it. He was not present at the shooting, nor did he have any personal contact with your client that anyone is aware of. At most, he would have reviewed the results and changed policy as a result. I do not think his presence or abscence affects your case. Can you explain why you think it would?
[Translate]
You answered your own question. ” He was the Commanding General, but what could he add beyond the Lessons Learned from the incident?” That IS a matter of Law!
[Translate]
Palo, that’s quite enough of that. Everyone hates lawyers until they need one, and then they’re as dependent as a sick man on a doctor. I work as a paralegal in the military, and I have interacted with dozens of lawyers, both military and civilian, in that capacity. With only a single exception, all have carried themselves with the utmost professionalism and a great sense of duty to the law. Kindly do not generalize merely because you despise this particular client. It’s unnecessary and makes you sound an ignorant fool.
[Translate]