Howard Bloom asks, What if Nidal Malik Hasan is Sane? Psychology Today blog.

Were they the insane acts of a man driven over the edge by the vicarious stress of war? By the strain of hearing horror stories from the traumatized veterans of battles in Iraq and Iran? No. Nidal Malik Hasan’s acts were in all probability very, very sane. But the roots of their sanity lie in a belief system that is alien to us. A belief system we have been fighting since at least 1993 when the first attempt on the World Center was made. That attempt was made by sane, rational, idealistic men. Men who believed in a compelling and widespread weltanschauung, a weltanschauung that wants to liberate the world.

Katherine van Wormer asks, The Hasan Shootings: Method, Madness, or Both?, Psychology Today blog.

Several theories have emerged to explain the psychiatrist’s seemingly crazed act. The first was that indeed Hasan was crazed, that he suddenly just cracked from the stress of listening to patients’ traumatic experiences in the Middle East and the knowledge that he would soon be shipped overseas himself. There was some thought given to the fact that he was suffering from secondary trauma. A second theory focuses on Hasan’s radical Muslim beliefs, his Palestinian heritage, and his reported connections with radical clerics who advocated terrorism. A third likens the rampage to workplace shootings by a disgruntled employee. In some ways, the mass shootings bear a resemblance to some of the mass shootings, usually done by disturbed, unpopular youths or unemployed middle aged men bent on revenge. Contagion is one possible explanation for the shootings haven’t seen in news reports but something that should be given consideration. A fourth theory also not mentioned in the news but with a certain plausibility is the suicide impulse, that by engaging in a menacing act such as a mass shooting, the person will almost certainly be killed, perhaps by the phenomenon known as suicide-by-cop, perhaps later by execution.

Been gone for a family emergency so I won’t go too far back. But . . .

DoD reports that:

Thirty-two specifications of attempted premeditated murder were preferred today against alleged Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan under Article 80 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

This makes sense. Normally loading up the charge sheet doesn’t help case efficiency, especially with minor offenses added to the more serious. Here however we have significant charges and all goes toward supporting a capital referral.

DoD reports a review panel trip to Fort Hood.

Today’s trip to Fort Hood was important to starting the review, Clark, a former chief of naval operations, said. “It was important to me to see the site, walk the ground and really see the setting,” he said. “Today’s activities have been immensely valuable in providing the baseline of factual information upon which we will grow the rest of the information that is required to conduct the assessment.”

Question, assuming that witnesses or others involved in the case talked with the investigators, are their statements discoverable?

Having now admitted to murder, Fort Lewis Spc. Ivette Davila today awaits word on whether she will face the death penalty for it. Davila, 23, an Army chemical specialist, is charged with killing Staff Sgt. Timothy Miller and Sgt. Randi Miller in their Parkland home March 2, 2008, soaking their bodies in muriatic acid and kidnapping their 7-month-old daughter.

This case has been discussed in comparison to insanity issues that may be raised by Major Hasan in his Fort Hood court-martial.

Presumably he will present a combination of witnesses and documents. The media is reporting that prior to reporting to Fort Hood Major Hasan had “problems” so there will be witnesses to odd or strange behavior; there will be witnesses to the nature of his work and whether he could suffer vicarious traumatization; and there will be other witnesses to how he behaved. Then there may well be psychological testimony.

Here is a link to the Digest for the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF): “Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility.”

Should Major Hasan be convicted this is the highest court in the military appeals system that could review his case. If he receives a death sentence then they must review his case, in the event of a non-death sentence their review is mandatory. When CAAF reviews a case the person then has the option to petition the Supreme Court of the United States.

You can immediately see why PTSD might not be sufficient of a mental health issue to be a defense rather than mitigation, because:

However, as the discussion to the Rule points out, an issue of partial mental responsibility may go to rebut a specific intent (e.g. premeditation) required for an offense.

The presumption of competence places the burden on the defense to raise it. The Members Panel, likely from Fort Hood, will have to decide whether any evidence presented overcomes the presumption of responsibility for the acts at Fort Hood. Next a look at some of the cases that apply the defense (or don’t). The defense is a very hard one to make.

There are two reports: the first is a short form with the answers to the basic questions. The short form is given to the commander at Fort Hood, his legal advisor, the prosecution, and the military judge. A long and detailed report is given only to the defense. Thus the examination and a large part of the work is privileged. Mil. R. Evid. 302 sets out the privileged nature of the examination, and the exceptions. The defense becomes the gatekeeper of the report. Should the defense seek to put on a lack of mental responsibility (insanity) defense the report may well have to be disclosed. Should the examination find the major currently incompetent, then he’s off to the federal confinement facility at Butner, NC, under Article 76b, UCMJ. There is currently one service-member at Butner under Article 76b.

Stayed tuned for the defense.