NPR leads with:

Dozens of people will take the witness stand in a military courtroom over the next few weeks to describe the pain of bullets piercing their bodies and the sight of fellow soldiers lying in pools of blood. But this hearing is not about an attack in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s a key step in the case against an Army psychiatrist accused of gunning down more than 40 fellow service members and civilian workers last year in a rampage at Fort Hood.

Down under The Age asks:

Nearly a year after the shootings, fundamental questions linger. Was Hasan another ”workplace” violent offender? Was he a radicalised extremist who should have been removed from the military? Was he a tool of radical Islamic leaders abroad who reportedly were in contact with him and spurred him on, and who immediately applauded the shootings?

The Article 32, UCMJ, hearing may not tell us this.

Here’s an interesting item in the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

A defense attorney on Thursday blocked a mental evaluation for the Army psychiatrist accused in last year’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, saying it should not be conducted before a hearing to determine whether his client will stand trial. John Galligan, the lead defense attorney for Maj. Nidal Hasan, said Thursday that he gave a three-member military mental health panel written objections about the exam. The panel must determine whether Hasan is competent to stand trial, and also will determine Hasan’s mental status the day of the Nov. 5 shooting that left 13 dead and nearly three dozen wounded on the Texas Army post. Galligan said after he gave the panel his objections, they went inside the jail to see Hasan, who signed a document that said: “I do not wish to voluntarily participate in this exam under the current conditions and time frame.” The panel signed the document and left, Galligan said.

There’s a similar piece in the Houston Chronicle.

R.C.M. 405 deals with Article 32, UCMJ, hearings.

R.C.M. 405(j)(2)(D) requires the IO to make:

A statement of any reasonable grounds for belief that the accused was not mentally responsible for the offense or was not competent to participate in the defense during the investigation[.]

R.C.M. 706(b)(1) provides the basic guidance on the what, when, where, and how of pre-referral inquiries into an accused’s mental health.

Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Hasan’s attorney tells News 8 he will ask a military judge Thursday morning to close the upcoming Article 32 Hearing for his client to the public and press. “I think it’s necessary to ensure he can eventually get a fair trial at Fort Hood,” (Ret.) Col. John Galligan, Hasan’s civilian attorney, told News 8 Wednesday. “We need to make sure his Sixth Amendment rights are not jeopardized.” The Article 32 Hearing is the military equivalent to a probable cause hearing in the civilian justice system.

Thanks WFAA.com for not referring to the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing as equivalent to a grand jury.

A child molestation case in the Bell County court system more than a decade after the military closed it out took a bizarre turn Friday when a judge ruled the defense attorney must be removed because he could be a potential witness. Lamar Andre Smith, 41, now of Georgia, appeared before Judge Fancy Jezek of 426th District Court wearing an orange jail-issued jumpsuit on Friday, his attorney John Galligan to his left. On Jan. 11, 2000, the case was transferred from the district court in Bell County to the military where a general court-martial was scheduled. The case was ultimately resolved with a plea agreement that reduced Smith’s rank and gave him a bad conduct discharge from the Army. The decision made Smith ineligible for military retirement benefits. In an odd twist, the judge during that proceeding on Fort Hood was Galligan, now a retired colonel practicing as a defense attorney in Belton.

Arizona Star reports.

A Davis-Monthan airman accused of running a sham Russian bride ring was acquitted at his court-martial Friday. A military jury deliberated for seven hours before finding Staff Sgt. Aleksandr S. Ilin not guilty of all charges.

News of the Weird. . . . .

The Capital Flyer reports that, and I quote:

316 WG legal office doles out UCMJ punishment for nine infractions

A Freudian slip no doubt.

Salon reports that:

An Army reserve colonel on his second Afghanistan tour has been kicked out of that country for writing an editorial about how much he hates PowerPoint.

And . . . .

Dr. Conspiracy appears to have a copy of the check by Orly Taitz paying her fine for Rhodes v. MacDonald.