Soldier ordered to delete videos of Fort Hood shooting
A soldier who recorded the terror of last year’s deadly shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas using his cell phone was ordered by an officer to delete both videos, a military court heard Friday.
Under cross examination, Pfc. Lance Aviles told an Article 32 hearing that his noncommissioned officer ordered him to destroy the two videos on Nov. 5, the same day Major Nidal Hasan unleashed a volley of bullets inside a processing center at the Texas Army post.
The footage could have been used as evidence at the military hearing to decide if Hasan should stand trial in the shootings. The 40-year-old has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.
Twenty-nine witnesses over three days have appeared either in a courtroom or by video link. Prosecutors have not said whether they’ll seek the death penalty if the case goes to trial.
Aviles described how he was waiting for medical tests at the center with Pfc. Kham Xiong, when he heard a shout and gunshots. He said he saw a tanned, balding man wearing an Army combat uniform and carrying a black pistol. “I saw smoke coming from the pistol,” Aviles told the court.
The pair threw themselves to the floor. Aviles turned to his left to check Xiong and discovered his friend had been shot. Xiong, a 23-year-old father of three from St. Paul, Minn., was among the 13 who died in the attack. Aviles, the 20th person to provide testimony at the hearing, was not hurt.
Hasan had been trying to get out of his pending deployment because he opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had been saying goodbye to friends and neighbors, and had given away his Quran and other belongings.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top15 Comments to “Soldier ordered to delete videos of Fort Hood shooting”
What, if anything, happened to the officer that ordered Aviles to delete the evidence from his camera phone? What on earth was his reasoning?
Report comment to moderator
Is it okay for an officer to order the destruction of evidence? I mean, I don’t expect him to think like a lawyer, but as Kay asks “WHY?”
Report comment to moderator
Just what is it with the federal government’s (and its agents’ and assigns’) passion for covering up/destroying evidence?
- OKC
- Ground Zero
- the Pat Tillman fratricide
– The “WikiLeaked” helicopter video
… and now this.
I absolutely hate having to assume that, when my government tells me something, it’s probably lying.
Report comment to moderator
At least it means you’ve grown up.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
How so?
Please, elaborate …
Report comment to moderator
It was probably just a knee-jerk reaction by an NCO who is suspicious of ANY attempt by an individual service member to take any initiative and create any kind of record outside of official channels. The NCO probably had a blind faith that “the system” would produce any evidence necessary or desirable and that information from uncontrolled or uncommanded sources could only be detrimental or confusing. Sadly, it’s an attitude all to common among long-timers.
Report comment to moderator
obviously those of you commenting have no military experience – -an NCO is a Non-Commissioned Officer as opposed to an OFFICER (Commissioned)
the NCO had no authority to order a subordinhate to delete potiential evidence. the subordinate would have been justified in refusing to delete it.
i can understand the deletion(following orders) but my question is: who was the NCO that issued the order and why did he do it?Will he be held accountable for the destruction of material evidence and/or obstruction of justice? if not, why?
Report comment to moderator
No air under airborne’s wings.
Nobody, neither non-commissioned nor commissioned, has no authority to obstruct justice by destroying no kind of evidence, never.
Report comment to moderator
This story only does this not name the others involved. It doesn’t say if he destroyed the evidence. It doesn’t say he refused to destroy them. It doesn’t say he gave them to the prosecutors.
It does not even explicitly say that the videos showed Major Nidal Hasan or any shooting, just that he was told to destroy them on that day. It doesn’t say if they exist or if the media they were on was quarantined for data recovery. It just gives us a sensational headline.
I expected more from World Magazine, but then I noticed it came from The Associated Press, which explains the poor reporting.
Report comment to moderator
Can the superior that ordered the destruction of evidence of a crime be charged with obstruction of justice? Was he under orders from the Commander in Chief?
Report comment to moderator
airborne (7): obviously those of you commenting have no military experience
Frank: “Obviously.”
USAF; jet engine mechanic; Jan 80-Dec 83. But continue …
airborne (7): an NCO is a Non-Commissioned Officer as opposed to an OFFICER (Commissioned)
the NCO had no authority to order a subordinhate to delete potiential evidence. the subordinate would have been justified in refusing to delete it.
Frank: You seem to be suggesting that “an OFFICER (Commissioned)” would have “authority to order a subordinate to delete potential evidence.” If that’s what you’re suggesting, I have a two-word rebuttal:
“Bravo,” and “Sierra.”
Assuming the order to destroy potential evidence of a violent crime was illegal in general (and such would be a safe assumption), it would have been illegal regardless of who gave it — NCO, commissioned officer, or BHO, the C in C his own self — and the subordinate still would have been justified in refusing to delete it.
(Of course, he might have to convince a jury of that at a court martial for refusing to obey an order.)
Report comment to moderator
His primary motivation was almost certainly the fear that the video might make it’s way onto the internet and embarrass the military or cause a great deal of spectacle and pain to the victims families. There’s also the possibility that if the video went viral it would ave been an effective recruitment tool for terrorists. I don’t think we can reasonable fault the officer for ordering it’s destruction.
Report comment to moderator
#7 Thanks for hopping in and saying most of what I wanted to say. The NCO had no such authority. It may have been motivated by desire to spare the victim’s families. The govt took custody of the Zapruder film from Dallas. It was private property. Govt was wrong then. The NCO was wrong as well.
I think the soldier should never have come forward to anyone with this evidence. But had it wound up on youTube, it would have meant no such thing as a fair trial, impartial jury etc for the accused jihadi.
Report comment to moderator
#8 “Nobody has no authority..”??? must sound better in your native tongue!
Report comment to moderator
FYI, Airborne LRRPER is Airborne Long-Range Reconn Patrol. Think Army RANGERS only on steroids
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!