Two people with handguns carried out the physical act, but several other people should be blamed as well. It wasn't a huge secret that he was unstable and on the verge of snapping. The information I have read said that they knew he was extremely disgruntled as well. One person commented that this behavior was in line with what he would have expected from this person.

All of this, but no one saw fit to do something that would have prevented him from doing this.

I'm definitely in prayer for the victims and their loved ones, but I'm getting tired of mass killings by people who exhibited signs of instability and others just stood back and watched. Maybe it is time for these people who know this stuff to be held accountable in some way.

Just one killer, and one serviceman who brought him down.

I am positively thrilled that this will heard in a military court, and not some namby-pamby civilian court.

It wasn't even a serviceman who stopped him. It was two civilian police officers. I do agree I'm glad this is going to a court martial instead of a civilian trial.

I haven't read much about it (I retain better when I read), but wasn't a woman involved in bringing him down? Was she an off duty police officer, or part of the military?

Little known fact, but most base security in the US is actually done by civilian police officers employed by the DoD. Both of the people who stopped the attack were civilian base police officers.

One of the soldiers killed in the attack was from my city. He was 52 years old, and went to school with a bunch of my family members.

I'm assuming this is because of the death penalty, but military courts actually use the death penalty WAY less than any others. Additionally, military courts are MUCH more "fair" (not necessarily lenient) in their rules and procedures than most jurisdictions, at least in my opinion.

"Namby-pamby" is entirely misplaced here. If anything, military courts are less likely to enact the strictest penalty (assuming that's death, in your opinion).

I'd assume he'll still be put to death as a result, but he'll be a marked rarity.

I stand (sit) corrected on both counts. My knowledge of military courts is pretty much limited to the 19th century.

There is a part of me who doesn't want him to be martyred, either. I also don't want to see any of the Armed Forces put on trial for not reporting Hassan for his prior "problems", either.

The first shot was fired by a civilian officer who happens to be a female.

Actually I do wonder, what civilian crimes does the Federal government have a death penalty for. Is murder one of them?

Who's nickname was Mighty Mouse. She got shot three times before going down, which is impressive.

I agree with most of this, but the more we learn about the warning signs, the more I wonder if it won't take a "public" airing of the laundry to get changes made, or even address what happened.

It's actually a really deep issue . . . were the warning signs ignored because, as some (particularly right-wing) pundits have offered, individuals didn't want to appear like they were singling out a Muslim? Were these issues fully examined and deemed noteworthy but ultimately unactionable (I really, really hope this winds up being the case)? Was it a communications break-down? It's traumatic and basically a one-off incident, but is it indicative of a cultural issue within the military (or the interaction between the FBI/law enforcement and the military, or similar)?

While the trial is basically open-and-shut, the ancillary issues are fascinating.

I do. They should be.

Why do you feel that way?

This is fasincinating no matter how you look at it, but yes, I think you have it right. Here's a question for you, however: if someone is known to have ties with Al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization, should he or she be permitted to be in the US military?

They shouldn't be allowed in the US PERIOD, let alone the military.