Being Honest About Major Hassan

Some thoughts from Mark Steyn:

Major Hasan is a Virginia-born army psychiatrist and a recipient of the Pentagon’s Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, which seems fair enough, since he certainly served in it, albeit for the other side. Most Americans think he’s nuts. He thinks Americans are nuts. It’s a closer call than you’d think. In the immediate aftermath of his attack, the U.S. media, following their iron-clad rule that “Allahu akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here,” did their best to pass off Major Hasan as the first known victim of pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. “It comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers,” fretted Andrew Bast in a report the now defunct Newsweek headlined, “A Symptom of a Military on the Brink.”

Major Hasan has never been in combat. He is not, in fact, a soldier. He is a shrink. The soldiers in this story are the victims, some 45 of them. And the only reason a doctor can gun down nearly four dozen trained warriors (he was eventually interrupted by a civilian police officer, Sergeant Kimberly Munley, with a 9mm Beretta) is that soldiers on base are forbidden from carrying weapons. That’s to say, under a 1993 directive a U.S. military base is effectively a gun-free zone, just like a Connecticut grade school. That’s a useful tip: If you’re mentally ill and looking to shoot up a movie theater at the next Batman premiere, try the local barracks — there’s less chance of anyone firing back.

Maybe this Clinton-era directive merits reconsideration in the wake of Fort Hood? Don’t be ridiculous. Instead, nine months after Major Hasan’s killing spree, the Department of Defense put into place “a series of procedural and policy changes that focus on identifying, responding to, and preventing potential workplace violence.”

Major Hasan says he’s a soldier for the Taliban. Maybe if the Pentagon were to reclassify the entire Afghan theater as an unusually prolonged outburst of “workplace violence,” we wouldn’t have to worry about obsolescent concepts such as “victory” and “defeat.” The important thing is that the U.S. Army’s “workplace violence” is diverse. After Major Hasan’s pre-post-traumatic workplace wobbly, General George W. Casey Jr., the Army’s chief of staff, was at pains to assure us that it could have been a whole lot worse: “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty.” And you can’t get much more diverse than letting your military personnel pick which side of the war they want to be on.

I’d like to think that this is the epitome of the absurdity and insanity of the government’s approach to the war. Sadly, though, I suspect that they will take it to greater heights.

25 thoughts on “Being Honest About Major Hassan”

  1. Steyn is nothing short of brilliant, and it’s sad that even his exalted writing seems to fall on nothing but blind eyes when it comes to pointing out the obvious. What have we come to?

  2. I agree with Steyn that its a close call on who is insane, Hasan or the US legal system. And by agreement, I mean as a joke. The truly insane is the US legal system’s prosecution of Hasan. Hasan knows exactly what he did.

    Any rational system would have found Hasan guilty within a week of the event. I give a week for the survivors to heal and mourn the lost. Afterwards, Hasan needed to quietly be put on trial and found guilty of his crime. I suspect even Hasan would agree that there is no need for appeal. However, if Hasan thinks an appeal will illustrate the absurdity of the US legal system; he will allow for it.

    That Hasan lives today and draws a paycheck is a travesty of the other men and women who serve and served our military. I wish I could believe this is the unintended consequence of a careful DoJ. Yet, as each injustice comes to light; I find it harder to believe this is an unfortunate accident.

    1. Hasan is being tried by a military court marshall, not the DoJ. The fact that it has taken 4 years to bring him to trial is a travesty of justice. One of my coworkers is a bird colonel in the reserves. He’s putting in his retirement papers because he says that you wouldn’t believe how politically correct the Army leadership has become in the past 5 years. As but one example, he was chewed out because none of the men in his reserve unit wanted to go march in a Gay Pride parade.

      1. Hasan is being tried by a military court marshall, not the DoJ.

        I’m just going with Secretary McHugh’s notion, but I concur whether it is a overly wrought DOJ or Army JAG, the system is an overly politically correct. In this case, it is so “politically correct” that even the defendant seems to have a better grasp of the absurdity of this farce of judicial theater. He’s the shooter, it’s his gun, and he did with pre-meditation. I cannot imagine the arguments to suggest he is being railroaded and thus could be found innocent on appeal.

        I am sorry to hear about your coworker. Was it a General or some political hack that chewed out an O-6 for not supporting a Gay Pride parade? Is this the new sequestrian thought process, “the military must support Gay Pride, but no budget for flyovers of sporting events?” It’s not hard to figure out who they are trying to recruit.

        1. IIRC, it was a general. “But you don’t have to be gay to march in a gay pride parade” (but it helps). Yeah, you’re going to get a bunch of Alabama reservists to willingly march in a gay pride parade about a week after hell freezes over.

          Generals have always been political. From what I understand, Congress has to approve promotion to flag rank so there’s no way to keep politics out of it. O-6s who want to be generals (and that’s most of them) play the political games with the best of them. I suspect that’s why it has taken so long for this particular case of “workplace violence” to come to trial and why the victims and their families were denied benefits. There was a fatal shooting in 2009 outside a recruiter’s office in Arkansas. From what I recall, the family of the private killed that day was also denied benefits for what was an admitted Islamist attack.

  3. ” That’s to say, under a 1993 directive a U.S. military base is effectively a gun-free zone, just like a Connecticut grade school. That’s a useful tip: If you’re mentally ill and looking to shoot up a movie theater at the next Batman premiere, try the local barracks — there’s less chance of anyone firing back”

    The Military has historically been very averse to uncontrolled weapons or ammo on a base. Only the MPs carried weapons on base. Are you suggesting that
    the Military walk away from 200 years of tradition and habit?

    1. So the 1988 law, 18 USC 930, referred to by the security forces and base commander of the base I used to work on as the legal justification for private firearms on base prohibitions must not be the tradition and habit you are referring to. I’m older than that law.

      Of course, if you actually read the law you’ll find it doesn’t actually allow the prohibition. Which is why some military bases do allow private arms to be brought on base. Some bases even allow hunting.

      There’s also the utter lunacy of not trusting military personnel – who we trust to control multi-million dollar weapon systems (small arms too) and potentially damaging secrets – to control their own private small arms.

  4. Really, 200 years? The Continental Army and Union Army would take up muskets and long arms and only hand them out before battle?

    Besides, your argument is moot. The 1993 Directive outlawed carrying of personal firearms on base. To the extent that the military stores US issued firearms in weapons lockers and armory; prior to 1993, military personnel could carry their personal weapon. So by your argument, why did we walk away from 200+ years of tradition? It’s only been 20 years, and obviously this policy doesn’t work.

    1. I don’t know what the Army’s policy on personal weapons was, but in the Navy well before 1993 all personal weapons of ship’s company had to be locked up in the armory.

      Regarding military-issued long arms, in general, weapons were kept in secure areas unless the soldier or soldiers was “under arms” – AKA “under orders to carry a weapon.” That was common practice in all armies going back to early modern Europe.

  5. There is a simple reason for not issuing Purple Hearts to the victims of Hasan’s shooting. That would mean they were injured in an act of war. If Hasan’s attack were an act of war, Hasan would be a prisoner of war (POW), and thus could not be punished for his attack.

    I do wonder why Steyn is in any hurry to convict Hasan. He’s not going anywhere, and it’s not like this shooting has generated any copycat incidents, not that a swifter conviction would deter them.

    Comparing Hasan’s attack to Pearl Harbor is pretty insulting – I think the Japanese lost more people than Hasan killed. By any military measure, Hasan’s attack was a minor skirmish at best.

    1. That would mean they were injured in an act of war. If Hasan’s attack were an act of war, Hasan would be a prisoner of war (POW), and thus could not be punished for his attack.

      That’s legally nutty, even for you. He wouldn’t be a POW — he’d be a war criminal. He’s a saboteur and a spy, who attacked us wearing our uniform. That’s a violation of the Geneva Convention. But no one cares when Muslims violate the Geneva Convention — that’s reserved only for western forces.

      1. he’d be a war criminal which means he couldn’t be court-martialed. We would need to convene a war crimes tribunal for him. Classifying this as an act of war opens up all sorts of cans of worms. Calling it murder keeps it legally simple.

        Besides the legal issues, why do we want to play into Hasan’s hands? He wants to be called a warrior, not a common criminal.

        1. He shouldn’t have been court martialed (and no one should be court martialed for “workplace violence”). He should have been brought before a military tribunal. And I don’t care what Hassan wants — I want honesty in government, and an admission that we’re at war.

          1. I’d be happy if we’d also throw everyone out of the military involved in the decision chain to keep this guy locked up without trial for so long. They have clearly forsaken their oath to the Constitution (of which the 6th Amendment is a part).

            Also, if they don’t have the moral courage to do the right thing in an easy case like this, imagine how well they’d fight a war…

    1. Hasan will still be able to appeal, and if he gets the death penalty it will be years before it’s carried out. No matter what, he’s going to spend a long time in prison, which isn’t free.

      Like I said, he’s not going anywhere.

      1. Like I said, he’s not going anywhere.

        He’s also getting paid as a soldier by the US government, while he went no where for 3 years.

        Should we compares Steyn’s “rush” to Gerrib’s push to get Zimmerman convicted?

    2. “He’s not going anywhere…”

      So Chris, are you in favor of interminable imprisonment for untried alleged criminals?

      In addition to what Rand said, justice needs to be speedy because imprisonment is an infringement on an innocent person’s rights, until such time it is determined by due process of law that said person is indeed guilty of a crime for which imprisonment is necessary.

      That this particular monster is obviously guilty does not obviate the requirements of justice.

Comments are closed.