Why Give a Damn About Hasan’s Beard?
I’m rather baffled by all the hullaballoo surrounding Nidal M. Hasan, the Army officer who shot several people at Ft. Hood, having a beard. They’ve actually stayed his military trial to argue over whether they should forcibly shave him, for reasons I can’t quite fathom.
Gross had next scheduled for Hasan to enter pleas to the charged offenses of thirteen allegations of premeditated murder and thirty-two allegations of attempted premeditated murder.
Before that occurred, however, the parties and the court received an order from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The CAAF ordered the proceedings stayed until further order by that court so the appellate court could consider if Gross can order the accused forcibly shaved.
Really? The guy killed thirteen people and tried to kill dozens more and the thing they’re worried about is whether he has a beard or not? That merits additional hearings and appeals court rulings? This is like trying to add a charge for littering to Charles Manson’s trial. Keep your eye on the ball, people. Convict the SOB and send him to prison for the rest of his life (he actually faces the death penalty, which I oppose). In fact, he wants to plead guilty but the court rules forbid a guilty plea for a capital offense.
Alverant:
August 20th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Why do they forbid a guilty please? He did it. He knows he did it. He is ready to accept punishment for doing it. I remember a line from a Monty Python courtroom sketch, “I did it your Honor but since everyone was so looking forward to this trial I’m going to plead ‘not guilty’.” the crowd cheers and the judge thanks him and promises to take that into account when sentence is passed.
lancifer:
August 20th, 2012 at 11:35 am
Hasan is a US Army officer appearing in a military court. He is required to follow military protocol.
It does seem idiotic, but then again it is the military, and they are quite fond of their little “rules”.
Ichthyic:
August 20th, 2012 at 11:36 am
…something about the beard being an important religious symbol, so taking it away from him is punitive somehow?
or is that quakers?
meh, they all sound alike to me.
chriswalker:
August 20th, 2012 at 11:47 am
It’s military court. As I understand it, you’re not supposed to have beard when you’re in the army. Therefore, this. He’s not been discharged and he’s actually still drawing pay & benefits (according to Wikipedia), so I don’t find it that outrageous that they want to hold him to regulations on facial hair.
@Alverant: With the death penalty in play, I’d imagine the “no guilty pleas” thing exists to prevent any kind of shenanigans. Regulations like these aren’t designed for the “slam dunk” type cases we see here, they’re designed for the more typical murky cases.
Abby Normal:
August 20th, 2012 at 11:47 am
Are you saying Hasan should not be allowed raise the issue or that they should just let him keep the beard and get on with it?
frrolfe:
August 20th, 2012 at 11:49 am
Hasan chop!!!
Ed Brayton:
August 20th, 2012 at 11:59 am
I think they should just let him have the beard and get on with the trial, which is what really matters.
The rule against guilty pleas is actually in place as a protection, only in cases that could result in the death penalty.
slc1:
August 20th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
In many, if not most states where capital punishment is still effective, in a capital case, the defendant is not allowed to plead guilty as that would constitute suicide by cop. I believe this is also the rule in federal court.
KG:
August 20th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
So add failure to shave to the charge sheet. Then they can really give him a stiff sentence.
Michael Heath:
August 20th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
chriswalker writes:
Ed responds:
I think we’re missing a prior premise here. What happened that allowed Mr. Hassan to grow a beard after his slaughter? If he’s still in the Army shouldn’t have he been forced to either shave or receive a shave on the very day where his beard was out of compliance with military regulations?
I agree with Ed’s larger point; just surprised this issue has to be handled by the courts as opossed to those who are detaining Hasan days/weeks prior to the development of a beard.
sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d:
August 20th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Not quite, ichthyic. Quakers are pacifists, so- whatever their other faults- they son’t often commit murder.
typecaster:
August 20th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
I think you mean “where capital punishment is still used.” I’ve yet to see a study that demonstrates that the death penalty is effective.
weaver:
August 20th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
This is all about military discipline.
He’s being tried in a military court for crimes committed while on active duty against other active duty Soldiers. He is being required to comply with the regulations governing dress and appearance. He is still on active duty, and while it is extremely unlikely that he’ll be found not guilty, in my opinion, he is still required to comply with the provisions of Army Regulation 670-1 with regards to grooming.
I’m a retired Sergeant First Class in the Army, and I completely approve of MAJ Hasan being required to follow all relevant regulations until such time as he’s discharged from the Army.
Dennis N:
August 20th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Is sitting in jail considered “active”? I’m not at all knowledgeable about Army regulations. I don’t see the Army calling upon him to do anything ever again. Let him keep the beard. It’s barbaric to contemplate the state executing human beings; now in addition, we’re going to forcibly shave them?
Nentuaby:
August 20th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Typecaster–
ef·fec·tive [ih-fek-tiv] adjective
1. Adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace.
2. Actually in operation or in force; functioning: The law becomes effective at midnight.
KG:
August 20th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
IIRC, the USA has had at least one Quaker President – one Richard Milhous Nixon.
Midnight Rambler:
August 20th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Also, since there is a trial required, they’ve said having the beard will make it more difficult for witnesses to identify him.
weaver:
August 20th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
#15 Dennis N asked: “Is sitting in jail considered “active”? I’m not at all knowledgeable about Army regulations.”
Yes, it is. This is why most if not all of those sentenced to long prison sentences under the Uniform Code of Military Justice are first reduced to the rank/grade of Private/E1. They remain on duty and subject to regulations for the entirety of their sentence, then are (usually) subject to a Dishonorable Discharge.
Chris from Europe:
August 20th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
@KG
And the POS Herbert Hoover.
wscott:
August 20th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
@ Dennis N #14 – It’s called innocent until proven guilty, remember?
And if he showed up for trial in a beard and was convicted, it wouldn’t surprise me if the defense called for a mistrial on the grounds that the court did not follow proper military protocol, he wasn’t treated the same as ever other military defendant, clearly it was all a sham trial, blah blah.
Weaver is dead right: from a military standpoint this one is a no-brainer, no matter how odd it may look to civilian eyes.
danf205:
August 20th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Weaver hit it right on the head – he’s still active duty pending the outcome of the trial and as such is also required to follow the regulations of any other active duty soldier – ergo AR 670-1. Plus there’s all the other considerations that the Army brass have to consider – appearances of bias against a Muslim soldier regardless of what the evidence and the defendants own statements are. He’ll be found guilty of course, but let’s face it they want this one to look as by-the-book as possible.
Dennis N:
August 20th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Point taken, but if a defendant formally asks to be exemption from that regulation, why not give it to him? Let me sign away his right to claim mistrial on that ground.
Dennis N:
August 20th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Let him*
ema:
August 20th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
@weaver
Why was this allowed to go on to the point that now they have to stop the trial for it. I’m sure he’s not the first soldier who refused to follow grooming regulations. How are those cases resolved?
coyltonian:
August 20th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Minor issue, but with many religions requiring beard growing (for example Sikhs) how is the army able to continue with the regulation being unchallanged?
pwillow1:
August 20th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
I didn’t understand the whole thing about the beard either, but then read (as another has mentioned) that the prosecution was concerned that the presence of a beard might make it difficult for witnesses to identify him as the shooter. Obviously the prosecution does not want anything that might cause a mistrial or give grounds for an appeal.
Also, since he does have a beard and is still active duty, there was discussion about not allowing him in the courtroom unshaven but have him present via closed circuit TV. Since a defendant is entitled to confront the witnesses against him, having him in another room might be considered to be an unfair trial and another avenue for appeal.
So yeah, these things have to be dealt with in pretrial motions and hearings so the court martial can proceed without delays once it starts.
weaver:
August 20th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
#24 Ema,
I cannot say why he was allowed to grow his beard to this extent. It is likely that concerns over the high-profile nature of his case led to him getting very different treatment than other military prisoners awaiting trial. Certainly I think that Hasan being a Major likely impacted things – there simply aren’t that many officers in pre-trial custody.
But I agree with the implied statement – this should have been dealt with earlier, not pushed to interfere with the trial on the murder charges.
weaver:
August 20th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
#25 coyltonian,
Regarding how the US military deals with religious exemptions to uniform and grooming regulations – groups like the Sikhs are not eligible for exemptions for beards because there is a significant life-safety issue with beards.
The US military recognizes, and trains for, the need to face chemical weapons. Grooming regulations are written with the need to obtain an effective facial seal with a protective mask – thus the requirement that groomed hair cannot fall below the eyebrows, and that beards may not be worn.
The US military makes exemptions for religious observances (such as male Jewish servicepersons wearing a yarmulke, where others cannot wear anything on their heads inside), but not to the point that they interfere with accomplishment of the military missions.
sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d:
August 20th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Well, the Quakers keep very quiet about them!
Doug Little:
August 20th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Maybe Mitt can get some of his buddies to hold him down and cut it for him.
ema:
August 20th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
@ weaver
Thank you.
Longjocks:
August 20th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
The US military seems to be able to face any opposition around the world without hesitation and with the most advanced weaponry available. They can make instant calls on taking out targets despite potential collateral damage. But a man in their custody with a beard has them stumped?
Modusoperandi:
August 20th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
But that’s his playoff beard!
steve84:
August 20th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
@weaver
That’s not true. A previous comment is still in moderation because it contained links, but the US Army has recently allowed Sikhs to wear both beards and turbans. Google it.
The gasmask issue is really a red herring. Apparently they have demonstrated that it can be done. Besides gasmasks and beards weren’t a problem in WWI and they don’t seem to be a problem for Muslim armies
StevoR:
August 21st, 2012 at 1:01 am
@29. sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d :
Can’t say I blame them! ;-)
Must admit those facts surprise me.
@12. typecaster :
Actually the death penalty is 100% effective in preventing the criminal who has been successfully executed from committing any further crimes.
OTOH, criminals serving life in jail can escape and go on to committ other* crimes once out, can conspire to and/or order crimes be committed by others outside jail, can end up being released early or by mistake and can committ crimes inside jail.
The death penalty especially when applied promptly is a permanent protection of society stopping the worst of criminals committing any further crimes and also delivers peace of mind and reassurance to many victims of crime.
(In addition to the English fail as noted by #15. Nentuaby.)
+++++++++++++++
* Escaping lawful custody itself being a criminal offence.
dingojack:
August 21st, 2012 at 1:34 am
Stevo – “OTOH, criminals serving life in jail can escape and go on to committ other* crimes once out, can conspire to and/or order crimes be committed by others outside jail, can end up being released early or by mistake and can committ crimes inside jail”.
..and I might get through all the complex security measures and press the button that triggers a full thermonuclear catastrophe that kills every living thing on Earth.
The point is one needs to ask the two risk-assessing questions: ‘how often could this occur?’ and ‘how dangerous would it be if it occurred?’.
Any evidence to give us an idea how likely prisoners are to escape and how much danger escaped prisoners pose to the general population, Stevo?
Dingo
—–
OBTW, which is the primary meaning for ‘effective’ Stevo? Hmmm?
PS: Better hope the sheriff never comes aknocking over all those unpaid speeding and parking tickets – they’d have to hang you to prevent you ever re-offending.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven:
August 21st, 2012 at 3:05 am
No, it’s a military-trappings thing. Different religion.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven:
August 21st, 2012 at 3:10 am
It is also 100% effective in preventing the falsely convicted from being exonerated, released, or compensated.
Good all around, at least to a complete monster, right?
dingojack:
August 21st, 2012 at 3:39 am
Here‘s a short (but old) paper from the Australian Institute of Criminology on the Death Penalty.
Dingo
weaver:
August 21st, 2012 at 7:08 am
#34 Steve84,
Thanks for that correction – I didn’t know that an exception had been made for Sikh Soldiers – this apparently came about while I was deployed in Afghanistan, and away from regular news.
http://www.army.mil/article/36339/
weaver:
August 21st, 2012 at 7:18 am
Regarding whether gas masks and beards are truly a problem – it has been asserted that they didn’t seem to be a problem during WWI, therefore they shouldn’t be a problem now.
During WWI, the gasses used were various derivations of mustard gasses and chlorine. Both of these could be effectively neutralized with a gas mask using a fairly weak seal – some skin blisters could develop, but the mask design of the day included a mouthpiece similar to a scuba air line, and would have prevented inhalation.
However, modern chemical warfare agents include nerve agents, the most effective of which, VX, functions not only through inhalation but also through skin absorption. LD50 is only about 10mg through skin contact – what would raise a very annoying blister using WWI agents is utterly lethal with modern chemical warfare agents.
It’s not a red herring.
Nentuaby:
August 21st, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Ummm. So if you can’t have any skin exposure at all, then doesn’t that mean you can’t be using a mask that seals to your face (i.e. one a beard would compromise) but must instead use a hood that seals to your collar?
weaver:
August 21st, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Inhalation is still the most effective route of exposure, so a tight facial seal is needed – LD50 for inhalation is around 15 micrograms/kg.
Skin exposure on the head is dealt with via a hood attached to the chemical protective jacket, which covers all exposed skin (other skin is covered by gloves, trousers and boots). Since the product is aerosolized, protection from rain-like (or, more accurately, mist-like) droplets is effective.
I suppose one could design a mask which doesn’t require a tight facial seal – but I doubt you could do that and simultaneously provide effective airflow to allow strenuous activity, and allow filtered airflow to wash across eye lenses to reduce fogging.
This is not a case of a regulation dreamed up to allow bigotry – this is a real military threat, and the regs (in the Army, at least) are drawn against that threat.