NY Post Tears Chris Christie to Shreds

> NJTransit fired the 39-year-old railroad worker this week after he was filmed setting fire to ripped pages from the Muslim holy book during a 9/11-anniversary protest at the site of the proposed mosque and Islamic center.

it's not cause of free speech, but mental retardation. not safe for those that use mass transit.

Yeah, bring this guy back to Jet Blue, and Steven Slater to NJ Transit. Both are exercising their 1st Amendment Rights, don't any of you members of the public worry about your safety or who is running your transit systems every day.

Christie did what any leader would do, government or corporate - got rid of a jackass who lacks judgment and has the potential to put people in danger.

i totally support his firing. his salary was paid in part by muslim riders, that are not safe if you let this anti-muslim fad go unchecked imho.

Jet Blue is not required to follow the First Amendment, as they are not the govt. NJ Transit is the govt.

Regarldess of what you think, the Koran burner is protected by the First Amendment the same way a flag burner is.

NJ Transit is not the government, it is a transit agency.

The Koran burner can continue to burn the Koran. He just can't work for a transportation agency that is responsible for safety of riders.

Also slater's outburst occurred while he was on the clock. The NJ Transit worker was NOT at work.

> Regarldess of what you think, the Koran burner is protected by the First Amendment the same way a flag burner is.

sure! it's protected, hence he doesn't go to jail. but the act reveals what an idiot/hater he is so it has repercussions as an employee. you don't need to be a rocket scientist to be a good mass transit employee, but being anti-any race or religion is a big No-No.

Transit employees, after the pre-Christmas subway strike in 2005, lost all credibility in the minds of the public.

NJ Transit is owned by the state of New Jersey. They are a component of the govt. NJ Transit is not a for profit corporation like Jet Blue.

And how did the Koran bunrer put riders at risk? Did he burn the Koran on board a crowded train?

> Also slater's outburst occurred while he was on the clock. The NJ Transit worker was NOT at work.

ok, to make it more clear. Forget about flag burning, this guy is more akin to the KKK. A guy from the KKK makes a public statement supporting the KKK, he works for the city of New York. HE SHOULD BE FIRED, as he's there to serve everybody independently of race/religion and he's salary is paid by black people too. get it?

Any fully private corporate employer would have fired this idiot. Why The_President can't NJ Transit? Do people get special treatment if they work for NJ Transit?

"Do people get special treatment if they work for NJ Transit?"

Yes, people who work for govt. agencies have more protection. The 1st Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies.

> Any fully private corporate employer would have fired this idiot. Why The_President can't NJ Transit? Do people get special treatment if they work for NJ Transit?

exactly! what's gonna make of public employment? not only coveted unaffordable pensions but a paradise for KKK, Nazis, anti-muslims, ...nut cases?

Because the guy's salary isn't sufficiently covered by the riders, and therefore the state has to subsidize this guy's salary and benefits, he also should get additional special treatment, according the The_President.

Nazis and KKK members have every right to work for the govt as long as they do not do or say anything racist while on the clock. If a govt. employee wants to go to a KKK rally after work, that is their Constitutional right.

> Nazis and KKK members have every right to work for the govt as long as they do not do or say anything racist while on the clock.

NOT TRUE! what's going on with you Presi? is your grandpa from KKK? do you work for hte gov?

Which part of the US Constitution says that?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **** or abridging the freedom of speech, **** or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

their Constitutional right means: you don't go to jail for doing that. It doesn't mean: you keep your job no matter how much of your craziness and stupidity you reveal to your employer (and those paying your wage) outside of the clock.

Right The_President, the government didn't prohibit him from burning the Koran. He can keep doing it all he wants.

it basically means that you can make an ass of yourself. it's not gonna take you far in your career though, just ask Mel Gibson.

"A government employee does not relinquish all First Amendment rights otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by reason of his or her employment."

--U.S. Supreme Court, San Diego v. Roe

And when they speak or write on their own time on a topic unrelated to their employment, the speech can have First Amendment protection, absent a governmental justification "far stronger than mere speculation" for regulating it. United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U. S. 454, 465, 475 (NTEU).

Which private employer is allowing employees to burn the Koran in public?

So the fact that this person is involved in a business that is responsible for the transportation and safety of tens of thousands, daily, isn't a justification "far stronger than mere speculation?"

What are you really protecting The_President? What is your real agenda? Is it Koran burning, or something else?

In Grinzi, the Plaintiff used the 1st Amendment and these Labor Code provisions to assert that she was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy. Yet, the Court in Grinzi held that the plaintiff's public policy claims based on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution failed.

Ms. Grinzi was fired because she was a member of an organization of which the employer disapproved. [Id . at 78.] The plaintiff asserted a wrongful termination claim based on the First Amendment. [Id.]

The court rejected the claim, however, concluding that because the First Amendment, the constitutional provision on which the plaintiff relied, did not adequately delineate a public policy violation in this case since **** it protects only against government conduct and not that of private employers. ****

http://themploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2010/05/freedom-of-speech-in-workplace.html

"What are you really protecting The_President?"

The First Amendment.

Really?

Yes. You should suppor tthe First Amendment too. Otherwise Obama can shut down your tea parties. I thought tea partiers love the COnstitution...

I thought you support the tea party and the Koran burners.

Certainly I'm not a fan of this guy like you are.

Me support the tea party? I hate them and think they are nothing but a bunch of racists and republica shills.

But that is irrelevant as they have a right to protest all they want.

So you hate the tea party but you support a tea partier who is burning the Koran and otherwise has a job part of an organization responsible for the safety of tens of thousands?

> Yes. You should suppor tthe First Amendment too.

ok, i'll do once it's being violated. call me if the guy is arrested or put on jail, ok?

How does burning a Koran off duty endanger anyone?

wait a second, Presi, here you have some explaining to do.

do you work for private or public entity? have you done sth really stupid publicly that reveals what a nut case you are? if the answers to those are no and no, you have nothing to worry about.

How does putting a noose endanger anyone? - KKK

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/noose-puts-columbia-on-center-stage-again/

symbols of hatred and discrimination shouldn't and cannot be ignored. the right to do that means you don't go to jail ONLY. you instead interpret that right as: "everybody has to disregard what i just did".

Well, the law is very clear. It seems you are basing your statements on personal opinion, and NOT the law.

What are you really protecting The_President? What is your real agenda? Is it Koran burning, or something else?

well, it's all about asymmetric information when it comes to the labor market and also in terms of personal relations.

if you are willing to show up on TV not only as a racist but also indifferent to the provocation against muslims... then why on earth does your employer and everybody else for that matter HAVE to disregard that about your character?

free speech doesn't mean 0 consequences.

where in the constitution does it say that everyone is entitled to keep their job even if they do stupid things?

Probably confusing the Constitution with the TWU Handbook, and the First Amendment with Chapter 2, right after Chapter 1 which discusses how to go on strike right during the Christmas season of 2005.

the anti-union mood is well established in the nyc area by now.

imho teachers have a lot to do with it. failing to teach even the basic math and solving it by closing schools and replacing them with charters doesn't show union teachers on a good light. will it end up being a right-to-work area? not sure if it can change that much.

"the anti-union mood is well established in the nyc area by now."

Established by corporate shill Republicans and Wall St. to deflect attention away form their massive salaries. Who do you think is beind all the anti union propaganda? Did Joe Sixpack all of a sudden declde to fear unions more than terrorists?

I dont see why so many people are anti union. If you don't like unions, DON'T JOIN ONE! It's as simple as that.

So you really aren't pro-Koran burning, you just want to protect unions, right? This is all just an attack on government employers to get more money for unions so they can go on strike and inconvenience the entire public, right?

That was your real agenda, right?

No, this is about protecting the First Amendment.

How would you like it if a Democratic governor fired any state worker who went to a tea party?

And I am no union shill. There are plenty of crummy uniosn that don't give a rat's butt about their workers. TWU is a great example. So is SEIU.

I thought this Koran burner was a tea partyer?

Nobody knows if he is a tea partier. I have a relative who went to the same protest, but in no way is he a tea partier.

If he was a tea partyer, would you not support his right to burn the Koran?

Is it more important for him to burn the Koran than to have safety and sanity for the riders of NJ? Or does it depend on if he is in the Tea Party?

I could not care less if he is a tea partier. It makes no difference. He is still protected by the First Amendment.

"Is it more important for him to burn the Koran than to have safety and sanity for the riders of NJ?"

How are the riders of NJ impacted by his actions? He was NOT on the job. He did not curse passengers out on the PA system, grab a bottle of beer, and jump out the door of a train with a burning Koran.

Are you sure the First Amendment is your objective here? You started out with a point of view specifically about Chris Christie. Maybe you don't like him for some other reason?

Are you going to ask me the same question 10 times?

"I have a relative who went to the same protest, but in no way is he a tea partier. "

let's hope your family member didn't show up on TV doing crazy stuff! everybody is free to express themselves as they please, sometimes, extreme stupidity and/or racism have consequences though.

this discussion made me realize that the guy that was fired chose to live in the wrong area of the country, here it's really multi-racial and multi-cultural.

if he cannot handle muslims, he should be living in places in the midwest where christian fundamentalist rule as we speak. in many of those places they make up 90% of the population.

Actually they did do something crazy. But thankfully they got no press coverage since they were overshadowed by the NJ Transit guy.

great! so then be thankful to the stupid ex-transit worker and to CC

Burning the Koran was clearly inflammatory, disrespectful and has first amendment(freedom of religion) implications. I wonder what the New York Post would have written if the transit worker was Muslim and seen burning a cross or a star of David at another rally.

Glad to see your hatred of Christie has made you a champion of the NY Post.

The Koran burner is clearly unstable and lacking in judgment. Those two elements are perfect grounds for his firing by any employer, and especially one responsible for the safe and efficient transportation of so many people.

"Well, the law is very clear."

apparently, its not... you've been getting it wrong this entire thread.

> "the anti-union mood is well established in the nyc area by now."

> Established by corporate shill Republicans and Wall St.

Moronic. Which is Cuomo? A Republican or pro Wall St.?

What is the law swe. Does free speech allow burning of Crosses, Korans, American Flags...
Perhaps some are protected "rights" but all in poor taste. I'm a big believer in freedom of speech, but recognize there are limits. Germany has laws limiting anti-Nazi rallies.

Correction "Nazi rallies"

Another interesting comparison of the United States to Germany.

pres loves to come on here and make a fool of himself. He hates that Christie is going against the massive irresponsible giveaways to public sector unions, so he tries to attack Christie on this issue. Christie didn't fire this guy. NJ Transit did. Christie voiced support of firing a bigot. I think he is wrong based on the Constitution, but he didn't take action but just voiced opinion.

Sorry pres, your socialistic liberal bent that has been damaging this country for years is almost over. The November election is going to start the turn against failed and irresponsible liberal policies.

"Christie didn't fire this guy. NJ Transit did. Christie voiced support of firing a bigot. I think he is wrong based on the Constitution, but he didn't take action but just voiced opinion."

Are you that big of an idiot? NJ Transit is a state agency. Chrsitie can order the Koran burner to be re-instated.

But don't worry, if Christie does not re-instate him, the guy and his ACLU lawyer will have a federal judge do it for him. Then the PR for Christie will be 10 times worse.

Uh-oh, ANOTHER Conservative publication has come out against Christie, although they don't mention him by name:

But hold on a moment: Fenton, who was charged with no crime, was engaged in constitutionally protected expression. It is irrelevant that his conduct may be judged foolish or offensive. It makes no difference that there were less provocative ways to make the same point. Or does it?

The incident occurred in his off-hours and was unrelated to his job. Should it matter that riotous Muslims might seek their vengeance against his state employer, thus endangering train passengers? Not according to the Supreme Court. The American flag and all it symbolizes cannot be shielded from desecration, we are told, because free speech is the defining value of a free society. We don’t give a veto to those it offends, for its very purpose, often its most salutary purpose, is to offend. The justices reaffirmed the principle in Texas v. Johnson (1989): Free expression “may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246965/there-oughtn-t-be-law-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2

just call him a commie, LICC--tell it like you really feel

The NY Times just ran an interesting piece about the Koran burner in which they asked a group of noted attorneys to state whether the firing was constituional. All of them sided with the Koran burner.

A Dangerous Slippery Slope

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

No government agency should be permitted to punish or censor freedom of expression, but the courts have sometimes allowed public employers to punish, even fire, employees for expressing views deemed to be incompatible with their roles as "representatives" of the people. This is a dangerous and slippery slope, incompatible with the spirit of the First Amendment.

If this justification were to be recognized as a broad exception to the First Amendment, virtually any government employee could be fired for expressing controversial views, even while not at the job. The First Amendment was designed to protect "bad" speech -- especially bad speech disapproved of by the government.

The Supreme Court's decision declaring that flag burning is protected expression should be extended to the burning of sacred objects such as Bibles and Korans. The fact that it is widely believed that some foreign extremists may respond to the desecration of a Koran more violently than most Americans would respond to the burning of an American flag or a Bible should not be accepted as a reason for limiting our freedoms. The so called "violence-veto" only serves to justify and encourage violent responses to nonviolent expression.

Were we to go down the slippery slope of permitting the firing of public employees who burn Korans, we would be getting into the dangerous business of deciding what kinds of speech are sufficiently offensive to warrant government censorship. If a public employee were then to draw a cartoon of Muhammad and not be fired, this would be taken as government approval of his anti-Islamic actions. It is far better to send a clear message that the views expressed by public employees in their spare time are neither approved nor disapproved by our government.

They represent only the individual opinions of citizens who are free to express bigoted views without these views receiving the imprimatur of our government. That is the American way, unlike the way of repressive governments, that control the speech of their citizens. We should keep it that way.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/19/can-speech-be-limited-for-public-workers/a-dangerous-slippery-slope

No 'Heckler's Veto'

Eugene Volokh is a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles.

In some situations, the government may fire its employees because of their speech, even when the speech couldn't lead to a criminal prosecution. But this government power over employee speech (or symbolic expression), especially off-duty speech on a matter of public concern, is limited.

But here the NJ Transit employee dealt with train cars, not with members of the public. Nor does the allegation that he violated the employer's Code of Ethics justify restricting his speech; such codes of ethics are just as constrained by the First Amendment as are other state employee policies.

The one argument I can see the government potentially persuasively making is that Fenton's expression might lead to a risk of terrorist attack on NJ Transit trains. Such a so-called "heckler's veto" might be permissible when it comes to the government's actions as employer (there is no clear precedent on that), though it's not a permissible justification for criminal prosecution or police suppression of the speech of private persons.

But if that's so, then unfortunately it's one more item we have to add to the growing Extremist Muslim Thugs Win file. And the bigger the file gets, the more incentive the thugs -- including at some point thugs of other ideological stripes -- have to keep being violent and threatening violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/19/can-speech-be-limited-for-public-workers/no-hecklers-veto-to-suppress-workers-free-speech

And finally, here is my favorite piece:

Chris Christie's 'Jersey Shore' Act

Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor, is an associate dean and the Carville Dickinson Benson Research Professor of Law at George Washington University.

The question of whether New Jersey Transit’s dismissal of Derek Fenton is unconstitutional is easy. A long line of cases involving the First Amendment rights of government employees offer broad protection for actions taken outside the job. State employees can engage in political activity as long as it’s not work-related.

There are a few exceptions but none relate to Mr. Fenton, whose job was to line up the trains. Accordingly, if the American Civil Liberties Union has a junior lawyer who needs some courtroom experience, send him to Trenton. His first case should be a slam-dunk.

Let’s get real. Lots of people work with folks they think are idiots. If agreeing with the political views of your colleagues was a requirement of employment, I would have been fired from every job I’ve ever had. And Mr. Fenton doesn’t make New Jersey Transit look nearly as bad as it made itself look when it dismissed him.

Here’s hoping a judge has the guts to do the right thing. Thankfully, New Jersey judges are appointed, not elected. This is supposed to make them less susceptible to political pressure than, say, the state’s governor.

To the list of people who make the garden state look ignorant, add -- just after the cast of “Jersey Shore” and just before “The Real Housewives of New Jersey” -- Gov. Chris Christie. Governor Christie has said he is “supportive” of the agency’s decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/19/can-speech-be-limited-for-public-workers/new-jersey-transits-silly-season

Hey President, I think you are confusing First Amendment with stupid behavior.

If after work every day, this guy decides to burn a Koran "to protest" on the sidewalk outside of his workplace, his ass would be fired. Not becuase of freedom of speech, because this type of behavior is stupid and inappropriate.

Would you want your public school teachers burning holy books and teaching your kids? Do you think they should keep their jobs if they did? They can be as prejudiced as tey want to be. But somebody has to decide whether an employee, public or not is behaving in a way that can be harmful or dangerous to the public they serve. Think about it.

good for Christie!! one less leech of NJ's system looking to make six figure pension off taxpayers..including Muslim taxpayers..

"Would you want your public school teachers burning holy books and teaching your kids? Do you think they should keep their jobs if they did?"

As long as it occurs off the clock, they have every right to burn whatever book they want to. When I went to high school, nealry every teacher I had was anti-war and expressed their opinions in class even when it had nothing to do with the material being taught. Yet none of them got fired.

"good for Christie!! one less leech of NJ's system looking to make six figure pension off taxpayers..including Muslim taxpayers.."

I'm sure a federal judge will soone ror later change that outcome.

Christie was not derpy enough for the derp police at the NY Post.

"As long as it occurs off the clock, they have every right to burn whatever book they want to. When I went to high school, nealry every teacher I had was anti-war and expressed their opinions in class even when it had nothing to do with the material being taught. Yet none of them got fired."

Prez, It seems like you have confused "expressing an opinion" with "trying to incite a riot". There is a big difference, and I am surprised you don't understand it. You're taking a black and white, absolute view on this matter. Absolute viewpoints are always doomed to failure in the real world.

If one of your anti-war public school teachers went out in front of the school after classes were over, on their own time, and burned flags or military uniforms, they would be fired, and rightfully so. Because that would be a big difference from simply "expressing an anti-war opinion", such as handing out a pamphlet, picketing, or what have you. Seriously, you don't see the difference?

"If one of your anti-war public school teachers went out in front of the school after classes were over, on their own time, and burned flags or military uniforms, they would be fired, and rightfully so."

Burning a US flag has been found to be protected free speech by the US Supreme Court in 2 cases. You have no clue what your talking about.

Yes Prez, I have an clue of what I am talking about. Now try and use your brain just a tad. we are talking about keeping one's job, correct? Now try to to concentrate and understand: If your anti-war teachers went out in front of a public school and burned a flag to protest a war, there is a good chance they would be fired the very first time for showing bad judgment and causing a disturbance, most likely under the auspice that they are in charge of students and are behaving irresponsibly.

Racism is a form of protected speech too, right? If one of your teachers insisted on calling the black students in class niggers, and the Hispanic student Spics, that teacher would be fired.

If you disagree, you have revealed yourself to be a fool, and really do not understand what freedom of speech protects.

Think I am wrong? here you go:

http://www.mississippilink.com/news/article_29a6a668-3024-11df-9cb3-001cc4c002e0.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n8_v88/ai_16035653/

Apparently freedom of speech does not mean anyone in a public job can say anything they want and keep their job. Examples abound. Prove otherwise or shut up.

A little advice: Next time you want to tell me to get a clue, take your head out of your ass first "President" - Bush probably.

"After much public persuasion, the Houston School District has terminated a substitute teacher accused of using a racial slur when addressing a black student last month. Marilyn Ellis was terminated by the school board more than three weeks after students said she used the “n-word” in the classroom."

This case has absolutely no relation to the Koran burner, as the offensive act occurred ON THE JOB. The NJ Transit condctor did not burn the Koran at work. If the teacher had went to a protest AFTER work and used the N word, they would have bene protected by the First Amendment. Again, this case has no relationship to the Koran burning.

I thought you were talking about freedom of speech? Are you now saying that freedom of speech ceases to exist when a public employee is working?

I am trying to explain to you the difference between "freedom of speech" and "reckless behavior" or the demonstrated poor judgment of a public employee who is charged with being a custodian of the safety of the public.

Whether or not this man's firing is challenged, held up or reversed, there is plenty of precedent of public employees, especially in law enforcement, being fired for behavior which may be technically covered under free speech. SO they don't go to jail, but they may lose their job.

Let me try and explain it again: Free speech does not equal the right to act reckless or crazy. Try your best to understand. Do some research.

Was the substitute teacher in Houston part of the union? Because The_President isn't sure if he should be outraged.

Hey Prez, please explain to me again how a public employee can say anything they want when they are not at work, without fear of work-related repercussions becuase of the First Amendmant:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/28/2010-09-28_bronx_hooker_teacher_blabs_on_about_past.html

public worker....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_itVyZKmrM&feature=player_embedded

seriously what does this have to do with real estate -- the_president needs to take his show elsewhere. there are plenty of politically focused sites where he could shine as a commenter or troll.

Thnaks Christie for flushing $25,000 down the toilet. Is this the "fiscal responsibility" you keep talking about??

"A New Jersey Transit worker who was fired after burning pages of a Koran during a demonstration in Lower Manhattan on Sept. 11 last year has been reinstated, reimbursed for lost wages and benefits, and awarded $25,000 in compensation for the pain and suffering caused by his dismissal."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/nyregion/nj-transit-worker-fired-for-burning-koran-gets-back-job.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/05/02/world/international-us-binladen-interrogations.html?hp

Nidal Hasan: guilty: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/nidal-hasan-guilty_n_3805669.html

And Bales guilty as well. But no death penalty-ridiculous:
by Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY

A military jury at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington sentenced Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales on Friday to life in prison without a chance of parole for a killing spree in 2012 outside a remote Afghanistan outpost that left 16 Afghans dead.

Bales, 40, pleaded guilty in June to premeditated murder and other charges in a deal to avoid a death sentence. A military jury was charged this week with determining whether Bales would have a chance for parole.

Bales apologized Thursday as he made his case for why he should someday have a chance at freedom. He did not recount specifics of the horrors but described the slaughter of villagers, mostly women and children, on March 11, 2012, as an "act of cowardice, behind a mask of fear, (expletive) and bravado."

"I'm truly, truly sorry to those people whose families got taken away," he said. "If I could bring their family members back, I would in a heartbeat."

Defense attorneys John Henry Browne and Emma Scanlan sought a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 10 years.

The defense followed two days of testimony from nine Afghans. Among them: Haji Mohammad Wazir, who lost 11 family members, including his mother, wife and six of his seven children.

He told the six-member jury Wednesday that the attacks destroyed what had been a happy life. He was in another village with his youngest son, now 5-year-old Habib Shah, during the attack.

Bales said at the plea hearing in June that he had been drinking contraband alcohol, snorting Valium and taking steroids before the attack. He was serving his fourth tour in a combat zone.

Bales said he had been taking the steroids to improve his fitness, and they "definitely increased my irritability and anger.''

The steroid stanozolol is a Class 3 controlled substance. Bales took it without a prescription or authorization.

The Ohio native and father of two from Lake Tapps, Wash., was charged with 16 counts of premeditated murder in the shootings or stabbings of mostly women and children. He was accused of slipping away from his outpost at Camp Belambay early March 11, 2012, and attacking mud-walled compounds in two nearby villages.

Bales described one of the killings, saying he "went to the nearby village of Alkozai. While inside a compound in Alkozai, I observed a female I now know to be Na'ikmarga. I formed the intent to kill Na'ikmarga, and I did kill Na'ikmarga by shooting her with a firearm. This act was without legal justification, sir."

Nine of the victims, five women and four men, were shot first, and their bodies were burned.

"I remember there being a lantern in the room,'' Bales said at his plea hearing. "I remember there being a fire after that situation, and I remember coming back ... with matches in my pocket."

He said he did not remember throwing the lantern on the bodies, but "I have seen the pictures, and it's the only thing that makes sense. "

After killing four people in the first village, he returned to his base, then went out again, he said. When the judge asked him what he expected to do, he said he expected to find people and, "Sir, I expected to kill them. "

Bales is with the Army's 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

Joint Base Lewis-McChord is an amalgamation of the Army's Fort Lewis and the Air Force's McChord Air Force Base. It supports more than 40,000 active-duty Guard and Reserve servicemembers. Bales worked on the base and lived about 30 miles west of it.