By Florida Bill
A whole lot of Americans question the use of the death penalty in a civilized society. However, there seems to be one case where the death penalty has been imposed, and even the most steadfast opponents of the punishment are applauding.
That is the case of army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who slaughtered 13 persons, mostly fellow soldiers, and wounded 32 other persons in an Islamic explosion of gunfire in an assembly hall in Fort Hood, Texas. The killings occurred on November 5, 2009, just eight years ago. The incident is regarded as the worst case of mass murder on an army base in United States history.
It took four years, until 2013, to bring Hasan to trial and he was convicted and sentenced to death in August of that year. There were all sorts of unnecessary fumbles and delays in bringing Hasan to trial. Many months were consumed as the military court sought to determine if Major Hasan could wear an Islamic full beard in the courtroom in violation of army rules. (He couldn't and the judge finally ordered that he be shaved). Initially, the Obama administration sought to have the killings classified as "workplace violence," and that too contributed to delays.
Now, four years following imposition of the death sentence, Hasan, 47, awaits execution as mandatory appeals are argued on his behalf. The appeals go forward even though the defendant admits his crime. He declined to offer a defense at his trial, and does not cooperate in the appeals with his appointed attorneys. He actually desires that the sentence be carried out expeditiously as a demonstration of his Islamic martyrdom.
His court appointed attorney has said the appellate process is lengthy and will involve military appeals, appellate courts, a tangled web of federal courts and then the U.S. Supreme Court. Hasan is a paraplegic as a result of gunshot wounds to his spine during his capture. He is imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas where he receives daily sustenance and medical care. Until his conviction, he received his pay as an army major, and it amounted to approximately $300,000 which, it is presumed, was sent by Hasan to his friends in the Middle East.
Major Hasan is an American born son of Palestinian immigrants. He is medical doctor, a psychiatrist, educated at the expense of the government. From his initial days as a soldier, his conduct raised concerns about his loyalty to his country, in view of his radical Islamic beliefs which he reportedly wrote and spoke out about. His radical behavior was known to superiors and fellow army officers but he was judged by supervisors and by the FBI to be "not a threat."
He maintained a steady correspondence with Anwar al-Awaki, a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary, anti American teachings. The Imam, who was a principal spokesman for ISIS, coached Hasan in the tenets of Islam religion. The cleric was sought on an American warrant, and he was killed in 2011 in an American directed drone attack on his residence in the Middle East.
Following his conviction and sentencing, Hasan sent a letter to ISIS chief, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, letting him know that it will be "his honor" to join the Islamic caliphate; and a six-page letter to Pope Francis praising Islamic jihad with his acronym signature SoA (Soldier of Allah).
Some four years have now passed as judges review the mandatory appeals of the Hasan death sentence. Mandatory appeals of a death sentence in a military case can consume many years. The requirement is somewhat baffling particularly in the Fort Hood case in which the defendant has acknowledged his culpability, and will not cooperate with his appointed appellate attorneys, and in fact seeks to waive appeals.
Since World War II, 147 members of the military have been executed. The last was in 1961 when a private was hanged for rape and the attempted murder of an 11-year-old girl. All were put to death for committing murder and/or rape with the exception of one, Pvt. Eddie Slovik, who was executed by a firing squad in 1945 for desertion.
With Hasan, there are four other prisoners on death row at Fort Leavenworth. xxx
By Florida Bill
U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson is a three term congresswoman from Florida and she stresses in her published biographies that she wears a new hat every day in honor of her grandmother. Her bio is light on significant accomplishments, but heavy with stress on her fight against racism.
Now, she has a new "cause celeb" and is accusing President Trump and his Chief of Staff, General John Kelly, of rank insensitivity to a widow who had lost her army husband in an ambush by terrorists in Niger, in West Africa.
Her claim that the president was insensitive and jocular in his conversation with the widow was a massive fabrication. She also charged that the White House is filled with racially-charged white supremacists, and she spoke of this racism with her friend Al Sharpton on his radio show. She also communicated and expanded on her fiction to a receptive anti-Trump media, which swallowed it, no questions asked.
In her early days in the House of Representatives, Wilson importuned then-speaker Boehner to wave the 1837 rule which restricted House members from wearing head coverings during sessions in the Capitol. Boehner denied her request, no doubt feeling more concern with what was in her head rather than what was on top of it. Nevertheless, she is rarely seen without a gaudy cowboy hat or sombrero.
Wilson was a school teacher and principal in an elementary school and for 10 years a member of the Florida legislature. She was elected to congress from Florida's 24th district.
In 2012, in her first term, she came upon the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman and wanna-be policeman. She immediately blasted Zimmerman as a profiler of blacks who "hunted down" Trayvon and murdered him because he was black. Her animosity for Zimmerman continued even though a biracial jury acquitted him of all murder and manslaughter charges following an extended trial and a hearing on the evidence. Currently, she is seeking to establish a scholarship to be awarded in the name of Trayvon Martin.
In July, 2016, Wilson exploded in anger and accused a North Miami policeman of shooting Charles Kinsey, an unarmed black man. The investigation revealed that Kinsey, a mental health therapist, was shot accidentally by police seeking to protect him from an assault by a mentally deranged man on the street. Kinsey was attempting to assist the autistic man, his patient at a nearby facility who had run off. Charles was shot in the leg and quickly recovered. After the dust had settled, Wilson, who had enlisted the aid of the Congressional Black Caucus, backed away as headlines on the matter disappeared.
On Oct. 18, Wilson was in a car with Myeshia Johnson, whose husband, La David, an Army green beret sergeant, had been killed Oct. 4, along with three other soldiers, in an ambush by ISIS terrorists in Niger. It was a tragedy and President Trump, whose respect and admiration for the military is well known, put in a personal call to Mrs. Johnson. She received the call in an auto in which she was accompanied by Wilson, who had known La David at the school where she taught.
The president sought to extend his condolences and profound sympathy for the loss of her husband. La David was a hero who will always be remembered, he said. He died in the service of his country, accompanied by fellow soldiers, and he had chosen to serve his country aware of the dangers he faced. It was a USA president, the most powerful office holder in the world, extending his sympathy to a young widow as best he knew how to do it.
Wilson promptly gave it a racial spin and excoriated the president for his comments, claiming that President Trump was insensitive and uncaring, and actually acted like he was joking. Wilson's interpretation of the conversation was shameful, but she communicated her fabrication to the media which readily accepted her version as it fit perfectly into its anti-Trump agenda.
A few days later, Gen. Kelly was asked about the conversation as he was present when President Trump spoke to Mrs. Johnson by telephone. He said he was "stunned" to hear Wilson's bogus interpretation of a presidential conversation which was intended to be private.
Communications from the President to a family which has lost a military son or daughter is a sacred moment, noted Gen. Kelly.
Pressed further by reporters, Gen. Kelly, himself a gold medal father who lost his marine son to a landmine in Afghanistan in 2010, said that he had met Wilson in 2015 during the dedication of a new FBI field office in Miami. He recalled that she boasted of her accomplishments and of having been the force for funding behind its creation. He characterized her as an "empty barrel," or he added, in the South she would be considered "all hat and no cattle."
Media "fact checkers" hustled to defend Wilson and accused Kelly of lying, pointing out that Rep. Wilson never said she obtained the financing. Nevertheless, Kelly said that he remembered her claim of "going into the attack mode" as a way of pushing the house and senate to act, and then telephoned the president to sign the matter into law, which freed up the appropriated $20 million.
Kelly said he had no reason to apologize for his comments as they were true. Some of the comments are not part of the transcript which the biased media is accepting as her entire speech.
President Trump has few kind words to say about the 74-year-old Wilson. He said that she had "fabricated" what she heard and that he had been respectful and sympathetic to the best of his ability, recognizing the tragic loss to the widow and to her family and friends.
In the end, Trump predicted that fair minded Americans will see through this type of misbehavior by this "whacky" member of Congress, and by the "fake news" media. His administration will be strengthened as a result of the outrageous noise being put forth by this woman who wears big colorful hats on top of a delusory head.
xxx
By Florida Bill
With all of the controversy about so-called "fake news," it is a fair question to ask if journalists abide by any code of conduct, or are they free to say anything about any person or event in the public eye? Does anyone watch the watchers?
Just recently NBC and CNN and other networks have been pushing a phony story that President Trump sought to accelerate the build up of atomic bombs by a factor of 10. His proposals caused Secretary of State Tillerson to call him a "moron." And, yes, it was all based upon NBC's unnamed "sources."
The President and all cabinet members at the meeting have forcefully denied the report. The respected Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, said that the report was completely false, and he labeled the network as "irresponsible." Secretary of State Tillerson also denied the story, as did other cabinet members present. A smug NBC said that it cannot reveal its sources.
Critical stories of figures in the news will always generate gripes and denials even when true. Revelations from factually true reports are among the benefits of a free press which holds the feet of government and its representatives to the fire.
But when journalists fabricate and carve stories in such a way that they are counterfeit or simply "fake," and then use these reports to hammer candidates, office holders and politicians---Is that to be accepted as the price to be paid for having a country which guarantees freedom of speech and an unshackled press? No way. Such conduct was never intended to be a tool of journalists provided for in the First Amendment.
When the hot news is a reporter's creation, which it too often is, and the accusations leveled against "public figures" are clearly false, does the news station or anchor take a hit? Where is the accountability, the correction, the apology? The sloppiness and irresponsibility of today's media, and its incredible, bullet proof arrogance, is often beyond belief. Some months ago, CNN and its biased friends claimed that there was a report that then President-elect Trump had engaged in immoral activities during a visit to Europe. The story had no "legs," and was designed to humiliate Trump, its arch enemy and the target of its "tell all" reports. The FBI said that story was false. "Sources," said CNN.
After the "atomic build up tale" President Trump reminded NBC and its affiliates and other networks that stations are licensed and have an obligation to reject the dissemination of false and fabricated news stories. Freedom of the press is a guarantee of the First Amendment, but intentional fabrication of stories might interfere with a license for access to the airways. Something to think about, he noted.
The plain truth is that no one holds the media accountable. Having watchers who watch public actions, riding herd on public figures, is a good thing, one of the hallmarks of our democracy. When public officials fail to live up to the public trust, it is the press that calls them out and demands action. But when the media lies, and fabricates out of personal enmity or political bias, who takes them to task? The answer is no one.
Some say there are libel and slander laws which provide appropriate sanctions. Not so. Libel and slander are fairly effective when the defamed person is an ordinary citizen outside the public arena. But these anti-defamation laws are virtually meaningless in situations involving the media and public figures such as office holders and candidates for public office.
Jim Strong a retired Chicago Tribune reporter and labor editor, sees libel laws relative to politics as a "fraud." "They allow corrupt publishers and writers to profit from publishing or broadcasting garbage without any fear of the victims they beat up on," he said. Anything goes, no matter how outrageous. "Absence of malice" is always the "get out of jail free" card for a reporter and the company he or she works for. Journalism professors established the
Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) in 1908, which drafted a journalist's "Code of Ethics." It encourages honesty and integrity and spells out guidelines for reporters.
Yet it is not a set of rules, opines Don Kirk, a veteran Asian correspondent for various newspapers, but only a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. But the missing element in the SPJ dicta is the prescribed enforcement mechanism of its recommended code. Consequences for sending out phony news reports attacking the character of public figures do not exist. Journalists must come together and enact codes of enforceable conduct with due process rights accorded alleged violators. It is not enough to spell out how a reporter must handle the job of covering the news in a moral and professional way. Lying journalists should face a loss of press credentials, and their employers should be made to defend their right to have a license.
It is possible to uphold freedom of the press and still penalize reporters who dishonor it with their lies and fabrications. It is time that the media starts weeding out its own bad actors.
xxx
By Florida Bill
As the anti-American superstar kneeling controversy rolls along, the Seattle Seahawks have announced plans to create a special NFL fund to assist "oppressed" African Americans.
Establishment of the fund is a good thing. After all, having a bunch of highly paid athletes showboat their concern for inequity on national television by disrespecting the flag doesn't really do a lot for the average down and out unemployed member of a minority. And why is all this happening now?
Maybe it's a way for the players to get back into good graces with fans who look upon their dishonor of Old Glory with contempt. And at the same time, the fund might be helpful as a welcome "write off."
Athletes expressing public dislike of America and its traditions in a country which has been a beacon of freedom for the entire world, has irritated millions who question the sincerity of the on-field multi-millionaire protesters.
The Seahawks are calling this special pocket of money the Players Equality & Justice for All Action Fund (PEJF). While this west coast team is the creator, donations, certainly will be welcome from all 32 NFL teams, its owners and league officials, and athletes everywhere.
Promotion of the fund was announced with comments from two of the Seahawks highest paid athletes, Doug Baldwin and Michael Bennett. Wide receiver Baldwin, 28, who recently signed a four-year $46 million contract, said the goal of the fund is "to support education and leadership programs addressing equality and justice in the USA." Protest without a goal is meaningless, he pointed out. Bennett, a defensive end with a $29 million three-year contract with a signing bonus of $8 million said the fund should also bring about additional training for policemen who must consider use of deadly force.
But will the "oppression" fund really help those in need, or just provide a lot of worthless public "programs"? Wouldn't it be better to provide soup kitchens, job training, educational incentives and neighborhood clinics? Wouldn't this be a more appropriate way for fat cat athletes to "give back" to the community.
The contrary behavior by NFL players in stadiums and on TV is controversial and has attracted plenty of attention. Is it concern over the the plight of their African Americans brothers their true inspiration, or is this just a political agenda designed to hit back at President Trump. A fair question.
While establishing a meaningful fund is positive, it can never excuse football players and their organizations for slamming the USA. The entire Seahawks team has shown its contempt for the flag ceremonies by remaining in its locker room during playing of the national anthem, or by locking arms and pumping a closed fist for the cameras. In the face of the NFL protests, an angry President Trump did not hold back. In language which is tame stuff for NFL players and owners, the President told owners they should "fire those sons of bitches" who sit or kneel or pump their fists in a show of dishonor to the nation. Disgraceful, he asserted.
Vice President Pence walked out of a Colts-Forty Niners game after 20 Niners "took a knee" in defiance of the flag and of his presence. Making his exit, Pence said he would not dignify conduct which "disrespects our soldiers, our Flag and our National Anthem."
Surveys are revealing that most Americans side with the President in condemning the conduct of the players. Players decline to honor the American flag by standing with their hand over their heart. Yet, when celebrating a touchdown or good play, they hump and pump for the crowd, often including a "crotch grab" as part of the show. They might even demonstrate wild jubilation by pretending to be urinating like a dog on the goal post. That conduct might suggest the real core values of some players.
. In the past weeks, a fall off in fan patronage has been reported. Is it that down turn which is now motivating players to speak of a fund for the "oppressed," and for the promotion or training for police officers who use deadly force against their innocent black brothers? Currently there are 1,695 players on the 32 teams, with an average salary of $2.4 million. Twenty five players are earning between $17 million and $27 million for the season. NBA Super Star Lebron James has endorsed "taking the knee" and has called the President a "bum." James has a net worth of about a billion dollars.
It will be interesting to see how much these concerned multi millionaires and their owners and clubs, and the NFL, will be kicking into the fund.
xxx
