A military judge at Ft. Hood ruled today that Nidal Hasan, the suspect in the 2009 massacre, cannot use a so called 'defense of others' argument to try to justify killing 13 soldiers and wounding 32, 1200 WOAI news reports.


  Hasan stunned the courtroom two weeks ago when he announced he planned to argue at his trial that he opened fire at Ft. Hood 'in defense of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban, and it's leader Mullah Omar.'


  "It falls as a matter of law that none of the victims at Ft. Hood Texas posed an immediately imminent threat to those in Afghanistan," Judge Col. Tara Osborn told Hasan.


  She said the legitimacy of the U.S. operations in Afghanistan are not an issue for her court to consider.


  "I think she could have said no to this from the very outset," Geoffrey Corn, a former military prosecutor and a professor of law at South Texas School of Law in Houston told 1200 WOAI news.  "I just can't see any conceivable set of facts that would raise this defense."


  Judge Osborn did not decide on Hasan's request for a three month delay in his court martial, but Corn said since the 'defense of others' argument is no longer valid, there is no need for a lengthy delay.


  "No judge has ever been reversed on appeal for granting a request for a delay for a defendant," Corn said.  "If I were a betting man, I would say you are going to see opening arguments pushed back maybe a week."