Last week I reserved judgment on the shooting rampage that took place, and hoped others would as well, as not a lot was known about Nidal Malik Hasan. Since that time a lot of information has been leaked out about Major Hasan. The FBI had intercepted communications over the past year between Major Hasan and a radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awaki, but dropped the investigation because it was believed the messages gave "no indication Major Hasan was planning an imminent attack at all," said a senior investigator (www.thestartribune.com).
According to the Washington Post, Major Hasan gave a presentation to his supervisors and others at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in June of 2007 where he said, "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims." Anwar al-Awaki was been thrown out of the United States due to his radical thoughts and has been connected to bombers of the 9/11 attacks. To compound things Dana Priest said in her Washington Post article, Major's speech in 2007 upset medical colleagues, noted "An Army spokesman said on Monday night that he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined to comment."
Today President Obama will address Fort Hood in a memorial for those that lost their lives and were wounded by the rampage performed by Major Hasan. The Associated Press is running a story today about Major Hasan's attorney, Ret. Col John Galligan, concern that his client will not be able to get a fair trial at Fort Hood "given the national media attention that has been focused" on the case (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jATMK2q96bKfz6B-aZUHOd5i4mBgD9BSLKJ80). Can we remove the word alleged from the reporting of the rampage? A civilian officer shot Major Hasan, although I was not there, in an attempt to stop him from doing further damage. My thought is that she didn't shoot him because he was Muslim or was there to help protect the troops. Then again we may want to reserve judgment until she is properly investigated as well.
The decision has been made to hold the trial in military court because the belief that Major Hasan worked alone and was not influenced or assisted by any outside person or persons. While the trial will take its course, it is time now for the FBI and other authorities to learn from this situation. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has called for an investigation to determine whether the shootings were a terrorist attack and determine how the warning signs were missed. Sen. Lieberman will look to use his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee. The push by Sen. Lieberman come on the heels of new information that classmates of Major Hasan warned Pentagon officials that Hasan "gave a presentation at the Uniformed Services University that justified suicide bombing and even told classmates that Islamic law trumped the US Constitution" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6528199/Fort-Hood-shooting-senator-calls-for-investigation.html). The Telegraph also reports that another classmate sent a command climate survey that warned that political correctness may hamper an "intellectually honest discussion of Islamic ideology".
Justice needs to be served for those that feel at Fort Hood. Even though a death sentence will not wash away the tragic event, it will bring the ultimate justice that can be given. Anything less would be a travesty and mock the events that took place at Fort Hood. I can see the Obama Administration hiding behind the fear of making Major Hasan a martyr and giving Jihadists a poster boy for recruitment. It is time for American Intelligence community to ensure their understanding of the Islamic ideology is complete. Sleeper cells are alive and well inside the United States. The event at Fort Hood is evident of that.
Major Hasan did not hide his ideology. The portrait that will play out in the mass media will be one of a man troubled by his duty to Islam and to the military he was a part of. When it was a reality that he'd be going over to the Middle East to potentially kill those that share his view it was too much and he snapped. The mass media will paint this, much to the liking of the Obama Administration, of an isolated man that acted alone. The short sightedness by the media and lack of journalistic fortitude will not push hard to ensure the messages by radical clerics are silenced. American's realize the time under which we live. Now, I am not advocating that an onslaught of backlash be heaved upon the Islamic community; rather we must have proper investigation into the activities to determine the extent of radical thought being taught. Like it or not, profiling has a purpose and when applied correctly can mitigate events like Fort Hood shooting rampage.
Where do we go from here? Can we finally call it a "war on terror" instead of a "manmade disaster"? Can we call these people terrorists? Why must we be politically correct? Why can we not talk about issues, not just the tragic at Fort Hood, with blunt talk? Is it time for political correctness to go away?
First of all, politicial correctness has no party. I want to say that before anyone on this blog accuses me of being some lefty nut.
ReplyDeleteHow do you go to war with an ideology? What weapons do you use? And if it is OK to profile people who we think are terrorists-who would be qualified? I am not fully arguing against your position, however, I can only imagine the collective groan that rushes through the crowd of Americans who are of the islamic faith.
The vast majority of muslims in this country and other western countries are peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Some are highly educated, some are not. Most contribute to our society in wonderful ways and if anything only add to the great diversity that this country offers.
In this country and others like it we are just going to have to put up with the dangers that exist in the world, terrorism being one of them. We must let our law enforcement agencies do their jobs and expect that certain people are going to fall through the cracks.
You wouldn't want to be profiled for something, would you?
I agree that going to war against an ideology that does not participate in conventional warfare puts the United States in a difficult position. Our military leaders can learn from the Revolutionary times when the colonists adapted tribal warfare against the "proper" welfare of the Red Coats.
ReplyDeleteJust as standing toe-to-toe went by the wayside, perhaps it is time for some of our tactics to go as well.
As for the war on terror, the profile can start with anyone that attends Mosque's where radical clerics have taught or spoken at. From that point, a series of other elements - based on past experience and understanding - can be established that crafts a profile that will assist the intelligence community to determine the proper level of surviellance.
It was only time before the war on terror came to our shores and although the Bush administration did a good job at preventing further blood spilled on our soil, the chances of future attacks are always present. Fort Hood tragedy has the earmarks of a terrorist attack and from the information we have know we can conclude that Major Hasan is more radical than intelligence officers originally thought.
I hide not secrets nor do I partake in illegal activities that puts me in a profile. So profile me and it will be a short profile.