Friday, September 7, 2012

Blog # 2: Fort Hood Suspect’s Beard must be Shaved, Military Judge Rules


                In the article, Fort Hood Suspect’s  Beard must be Shaved, Military Judge Rules, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was being put on trial for the shooting that he was convicted of in 2009. Just recently he is being trialed for growing his beard. Major Hasan said he was growing it out of devotion to his Muslim faith but it has caused an issue especially since he is being trialed in a military court. Army regulations don’t permit soldiers to have beards and those who violate that regulation allow for army officials to forcibly shave their beard.  Hasan has been fined multiple times for showing up in court with a beard and has been forced to watch the trial from a near-by trailer. In the matter of the shooting he is being trialed for killing 13 and wounding 32 in November of 2009. If he is convicted, he is to receive the death penalty. On Thursday Hasan was allowed to sit in the courtroom for an entire hearing for the first time since June. This hearing was held to determine if shaving him would violate his religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that was made in 1993 to protect religious observance from government interference. Hasan’s defense lawyers said that he grew it out of sincere belief in his religion and his calm attitude during the hearing showed that it wasn’t a disruption as Colonel Gross had said it was earlier. His lead military lawyer Lt. Col. Kris R. Poppe said that if his beard was forcibly shaved then it would put him a perilous state. Army prosecutors believe that shaving his beard wouldn’t be violating his rights. They believe he grew it out so that witnesses wouldn’t be able to identify him in court. As evidence they submitted a transcript of a recorded phone call Hasan had while he was in the Bell County Jail in nearby Belton, TX. A prosecutor states that during the phone call Hasan pledged allegiance to the mujahedeen. Col. Poppe claimed that his past remarks did not matter because it was only recently this year that he began his intensified religious reflection. He also stated that Hasan offered twice to plead guilty of all charges and for him to try to disguise himself doesn’t go with him trying to plead guilty. Col. Gross ruled that forcibly shaving his hair doesn’t violate his rights because the law states that as long as it shows a “compelling” need to do so and if it uses the “least restrictive means” available, it was ok. Col. Gross said that a forced shaving met those requirements. The judge’s orders won’t be enforced until Major Hasan’s appeal has been exhausted. Everything has been put on hold. His trial was supposed to start August 20 but due to the beard issue it has been put on hold.

                 There really isn’t a way to analyze this situation. Although Hasan committed a crime he fully committed himself to his culture and their ways. Since he was being trialed in a military courtroom the fact that he had grown his beard out was against normal military regulations. If he were to be trialed in a normal courtroom there wouldn’t have been a problem. I wouldn’t consider this a social problem because there is nothing that society could do as a collective to solve this problem. If they could, it’s a possibility that it could be a social problem because it could affect the Muslim culture. There is also a possibility that it could be considered a public issue because it affects more than just Hasan and his family. It also affects everyone in the courtroom and man people in the Muslim culture. If they decided to allow him to keep his beard are the doing the right thing? If they didn’t are they taking his religious rights away? That could create a value conflict because they are considering their values; what is right and wrong.  The prosecutor believes they should shave Hasan’s beard because that’s regulation and he was possibly trying to disguise himself from witnesses. Hasan’s defense lawyers believe shaving his beard is taking away his religious rights. It’s a disagreement on values.
 

No comments:

Post a Comment