Intelligence agencies knew Hasan was a traitor

This disaster gets worse every day:

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

Maybe he was just calling to say hello?

It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.

One senior lawmaker said the CIA had, so far, refused to brief the intelligence committees on what, if any, knowledge they had about Hasan's efforts.

CIA director Leon Panetta and the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, have been asked by Congress "to preserve" all documents and intelligence files that relate to Hasan, according to the lawmaker.

What a demoralizing, foul-smelling mess. Innocent people are dead because . . . why, exactly? Systemic refusal to face reality? Fear of discrimination lawsuits? Incompetence? Negligence?

This revelation leads naturally to the question: Will Hasan be charged with treason? I'm no lawyer but based on that quaintly old-fashioned document, the US Constitution, it seems like a no-brainer:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

*Updates:

Jim Geraghty asks,

Is anyone else in our military ranks trying to reach out to al-Qaeda?

Would it matter, in any practical sense, if there were?

Victor Davis Hanson:

One wonders whether Major Hasan — temporarily on sick leave — will return to his old quasi-official advisory role about our nation's security as a panelist for the Presidential Transition Task Force. Would now removing him from such future responsibilities be considered Islamaphobic?

See Mark Steyn, who asks the unanswerable question, "Who's nuttier?"

The guy who gives a lecture to other military doctors in which he says non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats?

Or the guys who say "Hey, let's have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel?

Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity, even unto death?

Read on. The list is long.

Cliff May calls it treason:

My two cents: The most widely accepted definition of a terrorist is someone who intentionally targets non-combatants with violence for political purposes. The shooter at Fort Hood, by contrast, was targeting uniformed combatants. In that sense, he was not a terrorist. So what was he? A traitor, a man who wore his country’s uniform, and killed his fellow countrymen in the service of his country’s enemies.

Is there a reason we no longer use the word “traitor”? Maybe it’s time to reintroduce it into our vocabulary?

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.