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.What a demoralizing, foul-smelling mess. Innocent people are dead because . . . why, exactly? Systemic refusal to face reality? Fear of discrimination lawsuits? Incompetence? Negligence?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.
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:
*Updates: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.
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?"
Read on. The list is long.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?
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.
11 comments:
As a former psychiatric nurse I was horrified when I read that Hasan was known to be trying to convert his patients to Islam. This is unethical in a super major way. And if you add the consideration that most of his patients were fortunate survivors of a twisted brand of Islam it obviously got in the way of the patients' healing. The doctors that oversaw Hasan's practice may very well be guilty of severe ethical lapses for not properly dealing with the harm done by Hasan to his charges. For the continued health and safety of our soldiers I feel that this avenue should be vigorously investigated. His direct clinical supervisor should NEVER get another promotion and whatever state medical board he has his medical license from should investigate.
I just cannot imagine the Obama folks pursuing treason charges against anyone who is not an outspoken Republican.
The real issue in my humble opinion is immigration, specifically immmigration of muslims into our country. You can not fight a war when you allow the enemy to populate your country (via immigration) and even serve in uniform in our own Army.
Not politically correct but then again, political correctness is largely lying in order not to hurt some feelings.
Immigration and the suitability of non-Western peoples like muslims is the real issue that is never discussed.
Nessus, there’s nothing humble about your opinion.
And the notion that “non-Western peoples like muslims” are somehow unsuitable for immigration based on being either of those things isn’t politicallyincorrect. It’s racist.
Now, if a person wants to immigrate and looking into their background you find conduct and choices that demonstrate they pose a threat to the US – yes. Of course you don’t let that person in. But being Muslim by itself is no measure of a person’s security risk.
Think of the thousands of Iraqi refugees now living in the US. These people fled their nation because of a war we started. You’d deny them access to the US because their Muslim? Some of these people had to flee Iraq precisely because they assisted the US during the war and risked death if they stayed.
They’re unsuitable?
murph, you sound like you're been programmed in the cult of "pc".
Do you know the meaning of the word "discriminate"? To "discriminate"? It basically means to make a value judgement based on observation and experience. Apparently that scares you. You seem to think it's "RACISM". Let me guess, you're public schooled, arent' you?
Moooslims, many Hindu's and Buddhists as well are ill-suited to become Americans. Why do I say that? Because I know US history, that's why. The USA was founded and started based on Judeo-Christian principles and values - those other cultures are anti-thetical to the Western tradition and American culture in particular - a culture based on individiual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, English language, etc.
Furthermore, I'm quite knowledgeable about Islam. Islam is a political ideology as well as an Arab moon god "religion".
About Iraqi "refugees"? I don't give a damn about them. Sure let the few (very few) who helped our armed forces into our country, but the rest and moooslim immigration in general, the more we let in, the more beheadings, honor killings of daughters and jihad of the Fort Hood type we will see in our country.
It's quite simple. More muslims = more terror, more jihad. Ain't diversity grand?
Failure, unwillingness to identify your enemy. It's a failure of will, a failure of maturity, a failure of manhood.
A pious Muslim in the U.S. Army breathes forth fiery Koranic injunctions that infidel Americans must have boiling oil poured down their throats eternally in hell, and no one in the Army does anything to stop him. Then the Muslim acts out his Islamic convictions by committing a mass murder of American soldiers, and liberals and the MSM blame the crime on American soldiers’ anti-Muslim prejudices.
Stick of fork in the USA, we're done (as a sovereign, strong, independent country).
Was Fort Hood a "massacre"? I define it as an attack, a military attack by our enemy on our army installation.
We have suffered now numerous attacks my moooslims since 9/11. Several just this year. In fact, the frequency has ticked up since our Social Work in Chief has occupied the White House.
I think treason is the proper charge. It avoids the whole set of excuses like "What made him snap? Was it pre-post-traumatic stress disorder? Was he subject to name-calling? etc." Treason (I think) could be proved by (1) showing him giving aid and comfort to America's enemies and (2) proving it beyond all possible doubt by taking up arms against American soldiers.
Has it even been ruled out that he was successful in contacting al Queda?
Nessus:
It's a good thing you cited "US History" as support for your otherwise completely unprovable theory about three of the world's leading religions.
Otherwise, it might look like you were pulling it out of your posterior.
@ the idea that this needs to be treason:
Investigators on the case are saying Hassan acted alone and without outside direction.
They have Hassan on thirteen murders and over thirty counts of attempted murder, including a military police officer.
In Texas - the state that executes the most people pretty much any year you care to pick.
Somehow, I don't think they'll need to add a treason charge.
This man is going to be kept alive until he can be properly killed.
Pity the cop couldn't have hit him a few more times - although the thought of a death seeker being forced to live out a life behind bars carries a certain amount of appeal.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
I'd say, at the very least, the Jihadist Hasan was adhering an awful lot. To paraphrase Bob Mitchum: Hang his gallows high, baby.
Quoted from and Linked to at:
THE SLAUGHTER AT FORT HOOD BY A JIHADIST
Thanks for the link, Bob.
Post a Comment