Militærpsykiateren Nidal Hasan er dømt til døden av en militærdomstol for å ha drept 13 og såret 31 på Fort Hood-basen i Texas i november 2009. Hasan hadde intet å tilføy. Han ble radikalisert av Anwar al-Awlaki og kalte seg Allahs soldat.
In seeking capital punishment, lead prosecutor Col. Mike Mulligan earlier recounted each emotional and powerful story of victims whose lives were cut short.
«There’s a price to be paid for the mass murder he perpetrated on 5 November — for the lives he horrifically changed and for the pain and sorrow he wrought,» Mulligan said.
«These murderous attacks left enormous carnage: 13 dead, eight widows. One widower. 12 minor children without a father, 18 parents lost children. 30 soldiers wounded. One civilian police officer. Their loss, each family — tragic, difficult and different. For some, death was almost instantaneous. So quick, so lethal they never moved from their chair,» Mulligan said.
Hasan, a Virginia-born Muslim who acted as his own attorney, admitted he was responsible for the shootings at his trial. He had previously said he was a «soldier of Allah,» deserved martyrdom and that his attack was designed to protect Muslim insurgents abroad.
Militære har fått mye kritikk for ikke å ha erkjent at det var en politisk forbrytelse. Massakren ble rubrisert som «vold på arbeidsplassen». Aktor fortsetter noe av den linjen når han sier at dommen ikke tok hensyn til den religiøse begrunnelsen – jihad.
But in seeking the death penalty, Mulligan dismissed Hasan’s intent.
«This is his debt to society. It is not a charitable act. He is not now and never will be a martyr. He is a criminal. He is a cold blooded murderer. On 5 November, he did not leave this earth. He remained to pay a price. He remained to pay a debt. The debt he owes is his life,» Mulligan said.
Mulligan said earlier that while Hasan’s acts were religiously motivated, jurors shouldn’t punish him for being a Muslim.
«History is replete with death in the name of religion. The acts of 5 November were religiously motivated. You should not punish him for his religion,» Mulligan told jurors. «You should punish him for his hate. You should punish him for the action he took in the name of his religion, not for his religion.»
Det er en merkelig kommentar til å komme fra en aktor i en straffesak der gjerningsmannen har hevdet et religiøst-politisk motiv. Hasan er ikke erklært utilregnelig. Ingen har villet stille islam for retten, men jihadisme er en realitet. Ville aktor sagt det samme hvis det satt en høyreekstrem på tiltalebenken? Uttalelsne etterlater inntrykket av at islamisme og jihad er emner man helst vil unngå.
Hasan hadde åpent gitt uttrykk for sine radikale tanker ovefor kolleger. Hvordan skal de kunne reagere neste gang når man ikke en gang tør å adressere ideologien etter at den har forårsaket død og ødeleggelse?