Branded a workplace violence offender in newspeak, Army major Nidal Hasan will employ a "defense of others" strategy in his upcoming military trial. 

Of course, it begs the question: Whom was Hasan defending when he massacred his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood?

This from the Associated Press via my way: 

Hasan, an American-born Muslim, said he would use a "defense of others" strategy, which experts say requires defendants to prove they were protecting other people from imminent danger.

And this tidbit:

Military experts speculated that Hasan might argue he was protecting fellow Muslims in Afghanistan because soldiers were preparing to deploy from the Texas Army post.

So, let's get this straight.  When Hasan was rampaging and killing his comrades-in-arms yelling "Allahu Akbar!" he was just protesting working conditions at the army base?  Or, perhaps, he was teed off that his boss was pushing him around? 

Hmm.  Hasan doesn't seem to think so, given his defense strategy.  Seems Hasan is going to proclaim himself a proud Muslim who took to the ramparts to protect his fellow Muslims in Afghanistan from the predatory U.S. military.

Maybe Hasan would have been smarter to argue that U.S. military action in Afghanistan was a broader instance of workplace violence.  We could envision a military court having no choice but to exonerate Hasan on those grounds -- given the political correctness that the military adheres to these days.  

Such utter phoniness and tripe, the government denying that Hasan was motivated to kill by anything other than his Muslim faith.  Hasan is a jihadist - a warrior for Allah.  And he intends to make that clear in his upcoming trial. 

Well, at least Hasan isn't PC.  Will his defense help shred the government's lie?