7 thoughts on “It Wasn’t A Tragedy”

  1. Oh, it was a tragedy alright. Hasan just wasn’t that the one with the tragic flaw. That would be the military brass and intelligence agencies that put political correctness before sanity.

    Always keep your priorities straight; that’s my motto. And priority #1 is the defense of the lives and liberty of the greatest number of Americans.

  2. I have the same problem with the phrase “those whose lives were lost on 9/11” or whatever act of terrorism or murder. The lives weren’t “lost” as if by accident or mistake, they were “taken” from us by murder. Lives may be “lost” if the cause was an act of Nature or an accident, but terrorists and murderers are deliberate actors who intend to “take” those who are dear to us away from us. At any rate, I really wish the euphemism squad would butt out and let honesty return to reporting, but I doubt that will ever happen.

  3. The part of this narrative that I still can’t wrap my head around is the idea that this might not have happened if the Army had just fired him or counseled him.

    Let’s suppose the army said, “Dr. Hasan, you are not allowed to have those opinions in the Army. Get out of here!” Then Hasan would have left the post and just got on with his life. Nothing bad ever would have happened after that. Or, “Dr. Hasan, we really think you need to see a shrink. Oops, forgot, you are one”. Or, “Hasan, we really don’t like the opinions you hold. Won’t you change them before you come back to work tomorrow?”

    In a truly free society, most crimes cannot be anticipated or prevented. But in a truly free society, citizens would retain the right to defend themselves.

  4. In a truly free society, most crimes cannot be anticipated or prevented.

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that in a truly free society the FBI would not be able to tap phones and follow Internet chatter? Because that would be dumb.

    Freedom has a limit – where it endangers other people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Other than in cases of “preemptive defense”, no one should be “free” to plot the deaths of others.

  5. I mean that most crimes against persons or property can’t be anticipated or prevented. Sorry, it’s not possible.

    In the case of Hasan, he was committed to slaughtering innocent people. Did anyone really know he was going to do this before he did it? Even if the Army had called him out on his beliefs, what could they do besides discharge him from the Army or counsel him? If he hadn’t done it in Ft. Hood, its a reasonable assumption he would have done it somewhere else. So it is with most crime; it’s an unforeseeable, unpreventable event.

    I don’t think any police agency should be able to tap phones or otherwise monitor my private communications without a warrant. That means said agent needs to have a reasonable suspicion I am committing a crime in the first place. By the way, such techniques are useful primarily in trying to prove fraud and more particularly conspiracy. They have very little utility in preventing or prosecuting actual violent crime or theft.

  6. “I don’t think any police agency should be able to tap phones or otherwise monitor my private communications without a warrant.”

    The entire “wiretapping” issue is actually focused on the other end of the wire. That is: Tapping Hasan’s phone should require a warrant – US citizen on US soil. If they have enough concern, they proceed.

    But… We’ve already deemed Anwar al-Aulaqi a threat – we should be tapping his phone. Warrants already exist there. The fact that Hasan calls him doesn’t mean you need a second freaking warrant. You don’t “bleep” out half the conversation when you have a warrant for one side of the conversation.

    If Aulaqi was a foreign national in a foreign country – and deemed a threat – do we need a warrant to tap Aulaqi’s phone? Standard practice has been “No, you’re spying, not making a case for criminal court here in the US.”

Comments are closed.