Yesterday, military officials announced that Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of murder under the Uniform Penal Code of the Military Justice System and will face the death penalty for his actions. This was certainly good news, if there is any to be had these days, for the families of those who lost their lives at the terrorist’s hands. While I too, am encouraged to hear that 13 murder charges have been filed, I am curious why the count is not 14. As Michelle Malkin pointed out earlier this week, Private Francheska Velez was three months pregnant when she was murdered by Hasan. Is that loss of life just to be ignored in the name of avoiding a national debate over Fetal Homicide laws and how they directly contradict the logic of many pro-choice statutes?
I am deeply troubled that this baby’s death is being ignored in such a manner. Many states – even extremely liberal and passionately pro-choice states such as New York- have statutes that protect the lives of unborn fetuses. Texas has a similar provision that has recently been upheld as Constitutional and so too does the Uniform Code of Military Justice – Title 10, Chapter 22 §919a (Article 119a). I fear that the decision not to charge Hasan with the murder of this unborn child is nothing more than a reflection of the administration’s position on where life begins. The decision is nothing more than an expression of its position on abortion rather than an administration of justice for the crimes Hasan committed. Even if the motive could prove to be less sinister than it seems, the decision not to prosecute Hasan for the baby’s life is at the very least an attempt to make sure that the case against Hasan doesn’t become wrapped in judicial precedent or political bickering related to the looming questions of where life truly begins. Avoiding an issue such as this – in a case such as this- is nothing more than a political move to maintain a status quo and to prevent any clarity from being reached on a contradictory system of justice that allows abortions on one hand and protects the lives of the unborn on the other.
I consider myself to be extremely open-minded in regards to the debate over where life begins -especially among my conservative brethren- and I fully accept that it is purely a religious decision when determining such issues as a matter of policy. That being said, when statutes are enacted to govern in this area, it is the duty of those administering justice to prosecute crimes when they violate these laws. If a liberal very pro-choice state like New York can pass a Fetal Homicide law and prosecute crimes in violation of it, I don’t think it is too much to expect to ask our federal government and our military justice system to take a similar posture. To ignore the fact that a 14th life was lost is to do a disservice to the Velez family and to the justice system that purports to protect ALL life.
Sanders challenged his conviction, arguing that a law criminalizing the killing of a fetus “at every state of gestation” is unconstitutional because it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Texas appellate court upheld the statute because its “principal or primary effect” is not to advance religion, finding that it has a valid secular purpose in that it “serves the State’s legitimate secular interest in protecting unborn children from the criminal acts of others.”
While some may find this surprising, many relatively pro-choice states have laws that classify the killing of a fetus as homicide or murder. For instance, he New York Penal Code defines homicide generally as “conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks….”
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
This is the left playing politics with a serious crime and an act of terrorism. YOu are absoultely correct that they want no part of bringing this issue to this case. It will be open and shut and will stick with the justice system in years to come so they could never let it be part of the charges brought against Hasan.
I certainly agree with you Gary. I firmly believe that they were hiding from the issue here. Additional charges could obviously still be brought, but it is unlikely given the publicity surrounding this case. Allowing precedent to be established on a case of this nature would be earth shattering to an administration that harbors opposing sentiments on the issue.
[...] 13 Counts of Murder for Hasan. Why not 14? | REPUBLICAN REDEFINED [...]
How about an assualt charge for the other 30 victims and a treason charge for his raising arms against his own country. Hang the dude now while he’s sitting in his hospital bed.