Forth Hood shooter should have been tried as war criminal and unlawful enemy combatant

AP/ABC News:

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan admits pulling out a pistol, shouting "Allahu akbar" (God is great) and opening fire on unarmed people, killing 13 of them. All, he says, in an effort to stop them from going to Afghanistan and killing his fellow Muslims.

Concluding he was on the "wrong side" in America's war, he told jurors at his court-martial that he switched sides.

So, victims and others are demanding, why is the November 2009 attack at Fort Hood being tried as a case of workplace violence and not as an act of terror?

Military law expert Scott L. Silliman says the answer is simple. Because the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not have a punitive article for "terrorism."

"They really didn't have an option," says Silliman, director emeritus of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security in Durham, N.C. "He was an active-duty officer. The crime occurred on a military installation. ... It was obvious he was going to face a court-martial."

Victims of the shooting rampage filed a lawsuit last year over the administration's decision to treat the incident as workplace violence. They say that designation has robbed them of benefits and made them ineligible to receive the Purple Heart, awarded to service members wounded in battle.

On Monday, the staff of the magazine National Review launched a petition drive directed at Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, arguing that the Army psychiatrist should be tried as an enemy combatant for what they consider "an Act of Terror."

"By not designating this event as such an act, it disrespects the lives of the 13 who lost their lives that day, and dozens more who were injured," the petition reads. "This is outrageous and I call on you to change the official designation now" before proceedings against Hasan go further.

While Silliman understands the outrage, he says transferring the case to civil courts — where a terror charge could attach — was just not possible.
...

I think he could also have been charged as a traitor.  He has said he was fighting for the other side.   But because of his ties with Awlaki and his obvious terrorist ambitions of committing mass murder for Allah, I think he could have been tried by a military commission like those in Gitmo.  I suspect it is because of the prejudice against those proceeding by this administration that he was not tried that way.  I am just not persuaded by Silliman that there were not better options than "work place violence."