That’s what the report on Fort Hood apparently is.
A traitor within the military’s ranks, with compromised loyalties that had been known about for years—as was the case with Hasan—should be stopped before his finger is on the trigger.
Therein lies the central problem with the Pentagon’s report. It says nothing of consequence about Hasan or how to stop individuals like him in the future. Hasan is not even named in the report, but instead referred to as the “alleged perpetrator.” The report’s authors contend that the sanctity of the criminal investigation into the shooting needs to be upheld. But this is not an excuse for failing to name the attacker. The whole world knows that Major Nidal Malik Hasan did it.
Nor is the ongoing criminal investigation a valid reason for avoiding a serious discussion of Hasan’s ideological disposition. The report’s authors instead go to lengths to whitewash Hasan’s beliefs.
The report lumps all sorts of deviant and problematic behaviors together as if they have the same relevance to the events of November 5. Thus, we find a discussion of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual violence, elder abuse, and the disgusting methods employed by child molesters. We also learn of the deleterious effects of events “such as divorce, loss of a job, or death of a loved one,” all of which “may trigger suicide in those who are already vulnerable.”
Was Major Nidal Malik Hasan a child molester, a drug addict, or suicidal because of a recent divorce? No. So what does any of this have to do with the attack at Fort Hood? Absolutely nothing.
What is relevant is Hasan’s religious and political beliefs. He is a jihadist, although you would never know it by reading the Pentagon’s report.
I’m disappointed in Secretary Gates. The same virulent infection of political correctness at the Pentagon that caused this apparently rages unabated. He should either do something about it, or (if the White House is standing in the way) resign, with an explanation of why.
[Update a couple minutes later]
And then there’s this:
One year after Obama eliminated the CIA’s terrorist interrogation program, the administration still has not activated its supposed replacement — the so-called High Value Interrogation Group (HIG). In hearings last week, Blair said that the HIG should have been called in to interrogate the Christmas Day bomber — apparently unaware that there was no HIG to call in. In a statement “clarifying” his testimony, Blair stated that the FBI questioned Abdulmutallab using its “expertise in interrogation that will be available in the HIG once it is fully operational.”
In other words, by Blair’s own admission, the United States at this moment does not have a high-value terrorist interrogation capability — at a time when our country has once again come under terrorist attack. Of course, the administration did not think they needed such a capability — because they have stopped trying to capture high-value terrorists alive and bring them in for questioning. So when one landed in their lap unexpectedly, they had no idea what to do with him.
…The irony is, Obama has so denuded our terrorist interrogation capability that the Detroit police department has more tools at its disposal to interrogate a terrorist than the still non-operational HIG.
And we still don’t know who made the decision to Mirandize him and let him lawyer up, without consulting anyone in the intelligence community. Everyone talks about health care as the driving issue on Tuesday, but Brown’s other big issue was the fecklessness of this administration on national security. I think that they remain vulnerable on it, and if the next attack is successful, the consequences at the polls in November will be devastating.
[Late morning update]
The de facto established church of the world. Which is, of course, their goal.
With regard to the Ft. Hood shooter, I think the Army is handling the fallout quite well since there is nothing anyone in the army could have done to either know, legally, what he was about to do or prevent him from doing what he did. It happens sometimes, crazy people just start shooting innocents. In the USA, in absolute terms, it is actually angry white males who do this more often than angry brown jihadists.
Jardi, I think to take that position one has to accept at face value what the Fort Hood report says. And I think the point being made by all the critiques of the Fort Hood report is, one cannot take it at face value.
there is nothing anyone in the army could have done to either know, legally, what he was about to do or prevent him from doing what he did.
There were many things they could have done. For instance, they could have drummed him out of the service, which he gave them ample reason to do.
All I am trying to say is that hindsight is 20/20 thus I am inclined to cut the Army some slack. There was no happy ending in store once Hasan went off the deep end. Even if they had removed him from the Army, there is nothing that would have prevented him from committing the same atrocity in another gun free, victim filled zone, probably a schoolyard since there is likely no other place in Killeen or even in Texas similarly disarmed.
Actually, if we still took treason seriously, there was plenty to nail him with long before his attack. I don’t think that the First Amendment extends to insurrection against your fellow soldiers.
As a Navy veteran, with a son currently on his last tour before retirement in the Navy, a son who served as a Marine in Iraq, a father who was in the AF and a grandfather who was in the Army, let me say that Jardinero you are typical of non-military people.
You just can’t see how Major Hasan must have stood out. I read the early reports of the things he REGULARLY said about the Army in particular and America in general. Just his words alone were certainly enough to get him mustered out.
He wasn’t working at GM, McDonalds or Sears, he was IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY. There are definite rules of non-allowed, that he broke repeatedly, that should have raised flags. There is no 1st Amendment when you are in the military.
His views were his to have certainly, but voicing radical opinions about the country used to be forbidden and worthy of discharge. You are NOT allowed to speak ill of the President or the country’s foreign policies EVER. Hasan did. The overall problem comes in where the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Major Hasan’s oath of enlistment butted up against the PCascist movement in the country. The PCascists won out, and major Hasan was allowed to stay in the Army, which left him free to kill people at FT. Hood he saw as his enemies.
Hasan should have been kicked out of the military. He wasn’t, and that is a problem the Army needs to fix. But regarding “who let him Mirandize up,” the answer would be “the military.”
Hasan was a US citizen and a commissioned officer of the United States. It is his right to be Mirandized. All officers take an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution (I know – I took that oath) and in this case the only acceptable thing to do is to extend Hasan his constitutional rights. Period, full stop.
Court-martial him, as he will be, and find him guilty of treason and/or murder, and shoot him.
But regarding “who let him Mirandize up,” the answer would be “the military.”
I wasn’t talking about Hasan — I was talking about Abdulmutallab. We still don’t know who made that decision, but it was probably Holder, without consulting anyone in the security community.
DerSchtumpy,
You are right that I was not and am not in the military but I share a similar pedigree to you, militarily, and also have had the experience of growing up very close to Ft. Bliss where every second neighbor was either a soldier or a civilian contractor on post. I am familiar with the way the Army works.
Most of what has been reported in the MSM about Hasan saying and doing has been collected and reported second and third hand after the shooting occurred. I can’t address whether the attributions were really known to the Army or are even true. I don’t really trust the MSM. Most other posters on this blog don’t trust the MSM either, except in this case, I suppose.
I have my doubts about whether the Army really knew what was going on with Hasan since I also believe that the Army would have taken immediate, positive steps to root out Hasan in order to maintain unit cohesion. Ft Hood is a very busy post, busier than most other posts during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. At just such a post they are less likely than at other posts to ignore anyone who adversely effects morale.
Hasan was a US citizen and a commissioned officer of the United States. It is his right to be Mirandized. All officers take an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution (I know – I took that oath) and in this case the only acceptable thing to do is to extend Hasan his constitutional rights. Period, full stop.
I don’t actually think military personnel going into a disciplinary action of some sort are read their Miranda rights. Not for an informal chewing out, a Captain’s Mast at least – and I don’t think it happens for even a Court Martial. It isn’t a civilian trial, military “due process” is different. (I could be wrong, but I’d expect the text to be different at least.)
By entering the military, you are explicitly giving up some rights accorded to citizens. The scope of your free speech is only one aspect of it.
I’ve heard a UCMJ counterpart of the Miranda warning mentioned on “NCIS” and I think “Article 31” sounds like what I remember.
I’m pretty sure enemy combatants, such as I would consider Abdulmutallab (for example) to be, are not entitled to an Article 31 warning, but Hasan would be — once a criminal investigation was opened into his actions.
Thing is, I do believe the UCMJ could also apply to Hasan’s words and actions before the Fort Hood shooting, if known by Army authorities at the time. And I think under the UCMJ, failure to address Hasan’s pre-shooting behavior could expose his superiors to being read Article 31 warnings of their own.
SInce the attack took place on a military base, and against fellow military personnel, and was done by Hasan as a military officer, I should think (though I am not a lawyer) that the military could use military courts to go for a death penalty conviction. Yes, Hasan would have the right to appeal the verdict, but my feeling is that the military court system would be a lot faster than what we will get going through civilian courts. Since civilian courts will apparently handle this, I do thank God it is in Texas where he can be executed.
ANd, yes, there was a lot the military could have done about the Jihadist in their ranks. I guarantee you that if Joe Baptist had tried converting patients to Christianity, and preached about Jesus when he should have been giving a presentation about psychiatry (and been a crappy unproductive worker ala Hasan on top of it) he would have been sent packing, and would have deserved it.
Forget what came before the shooting. It was General Casey’s remark AFTER the shooting that is absolutely unforgivable — that “diversity” in the military was more sacred than the lives lost. That man should be stripped of command, then of citizenship…
And we still don’t know who made the decision to Mirandize him and let him lawyer up, without consulting anyone in the intelligence community.
Doesn’t matter. The buck stops at Obama’s desk. I don’t care if he made the decision personally or delegated that to someone else. It’s his responsibility.
From everyting I’ve read about the Ft. Hood Report, there does not appear to be ANY mention about what I would consider an obvious observation: How in HELL’S name did it come to be that officers and senior non-coms were not wearing side-arms at all times? Yes, I know, you can trace that lunacy back to Bill Clinton, but CERTAINLY that practice must surely be rescinded right now, and that should be one of the Report’s highest-priority recommendations!
Bruce Lagasse – NCOs and officers in the US military have not been in the practice of wearing sidearms at all times since at least World War I. So unless Clinton went back in time, you can’t lay that on him.