Fort Hood Shootings

[Haggis@wk]

Is anyone else disturbed that the most factual reporting on events that are happening in the U.S. is by British newspapers? Or that the British newspapers tracked down more information about Hasan than the Army’s investigators? Isn’t it more than a little strange that I have to metaphorically travel to London to learn what happened less than 200 miles from my home?

From the Telegraph we learn that Hasan attended same radical mosque as 9/11 hijackers,

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.

Awlaki turned up in the 9/11 Commission report as someone whose connection to the hijackers might have been more than incidental. The WaPo reported that U.S. intelligence suspects him of having worked with Al Qaeda in the Gulf after leaving Virginia in 2002. Quote from a U.S. counterterrorism official: “There is good reason to believe Anwar Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States, including plotting attacks against America and our allies.”

This piece — also from the Telegraph includes details of a mysterious man seen with Hasan for the first time just last week —provides the first hard details I’ve come across about him handing out Korans to the neighbors the night before the murders.
A blogger, Asra Nomani interviewed the congregants at the mosque he attended while living in Maryland. Quote: “He was a typical fundamentalist Muslim.”

But a closer look behind the doors of the mosque and inside the conversations between the engineer and the doctor reveal a more complex picture of a young first-generation American Muslim man living a life of dissonance between his identity as an American and his ideology as a Muslim who had accepted a literal, rigid interpretation of Islam, akin to the puritanical Wahhabi and Salafi interpretations of Islam that define the theology of militancy inside the Muslim world today, according to community members who knew Hasan.

“So many time I talked with him,” said Akhter, a community leader who is sort of like a mosque gadfly, challenging congregants to reject literal, rigid interpretations of Islam. “I was trying to modernize him. I tried my best. He used to hate America as a whole. He was more anti-American than American.”

Despite all the conversations, Akther said, “I couldn’t get through to him. He was a typical fundamentalist Muslim.”

Follow the link for details of Akhter’s exchange with Hasan about what “jihad” really means.

Apparently only English newspapers and bloggers are willing to ask tough questions in this horrific crime.

Exit quotation from the hero of Fort Hood Sgt. Munley, uttered as her very first words after regaining consciousness: “Did anybody die?”

[Shapley]

It is troubling. However, such reporting would be, and probably will be, dismissed as 'rabble-rousing' and 'fear-mongering' if and when it gets reported in the U.S. press.

And, of course, it won't be valid if it appears in certain news publications.

[dai bread]

Most of a page (allowing for ads) was devoted to reports about this affair in the NZ Herald. They were sourced from The Telgraph Group and The Observer.

The red flags enumerated in those reports should have rung alarm bells, especially among Hasan's colleagues in the mental health business. Doesn't anyone talk to anyone in Fort Hood?

[Shapley]

Looks like MSNBC has finally added that information to their news page. I haven't checked Fox News.

[Haggis@wk]

Most of a page (allowing for ads) was devoted to reports about this affair in the NZ Herald. They were sourced from The Telgraph Group and The Observer.

The red flags enumerated in those reports should have rung alarm bells, especially among Hasan's colleagues in the mental health business. Doesn't anyone talk to anyone in Fort Hood?

Trick question. Would it normally be considered a national-security problem if a field grade officer had tried to contact an enemy of the United States during wartime? ABC News reports that the FBI knew that Major Nidal Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaeda and its associates months before Hasan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing 13 people. Did the FBI tell the Army about it? That gets rather murky:

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.

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.

However, the Army certainly had enough information to know that Hasan was a problem:

A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, “We would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.

Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan’s statements.

“And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office…be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict,” Finell told ABC News.

Exit question: “If American intelligence agencies missed the signs pre-911 and they missed a big hint pre-Fort Hood, exactly what are they missing now, and why are they missing it?”

Possible answer: Because in this case, it seems as though political correctness over the feelings of Muslims has played a part in hamstringing action — and that could be the case with other potential threats, too.

Shortly after 9/11 a commentator said that the prevailing attitude seems to be “We’d rather be screwed than rude.”

Well, we were “screwed” last Thursday. Time to get “rude”?

[jamiebk]

Sounds to me like the Army screwed the pooch on this one...big time. The signs were there...no one listened or took action...or for that matter, even seemed to investigate this guy to an appropriate degree. What the hell was he doing in the Army (in any capacity) anyway?

[Haggis@wk]

JEEZ, what is it with Jihadists and strip clubs?

[Haggis@wk]

Bottom line: The American society mainly driven by the sermonizing of our “elites”, has come to an unstated conclusion that, unfortunately, a few Americans will have to be sacrificed from time to time, for the larger goal of establishing the fact that Americans in no way think Muslims are any more likely than any others to commit either random or premeditated terrorist violence.

That’s certainly the initial lesson of Fort Hood. Similarly, I remember from the 1980s and 1990s, when we accepted that to be a diplomat or a soldier stationed anywhere in the Muslim world meant there was some chance your barracks, camp, hotel, embassy, or ship would be attacked — and very little chance that the U.S. government would do much in response other than launch an occasional ineffectual cruise missile or offer a bombastic "this will not stand" speech.

20 other Islamic killers since 9/11 have shot, stabbed, or run over innocents at malls, airline counters, military facilities, and Jewish-affiliated centers.

Maybe If the “lone-wolf” incidents start happening ten times a year, rather than three or four, and if one or two terrorist plots succeed and result in several hundred killed, then attitudes may change (at least for a while).

[Giant Communist Robot]

This morning on NPR, prefacing a discussion about Hassan, listeners were warned he is innocent until proven guilty. I believe this is wrong. Civilian law is based on British common law and in civilian courts this is true, but Hassan is under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is based on Napoleanic law--and he must prove his innocence.

[jamiebk]

This morning on NPR, prefacing a discussion about Hassan, listeners were warned he is innocent until proven guilty. I believe this is wrong. Civilian law is based on British common law and in civilian courts this is true, but Hassan is under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is based on Napoleanic law--and he must prove his innocence.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. His only defense would be insanity...unfortunately, anyone who would do this clearly seems insane to me. I am really glad that he wasn't killed though. This gives justice a chance and denies him the peace of death.

[Shapley]

This morning on NPR, prefacing a discussion about Hassan, listeners were warned he is innocent until proven guilty. I believe this is wrong. Civilian law is based on British common law and in civilian courts this is true, but Hassan is under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is based on Napoleanic law--and he must prove his innocence.

I believe that is correct. Most people don't make that distinction. They also believe the "innocent unless proven guilty" rule extends beyond matters legal.

This, of course, is at the heart of the Guantamo debate. Many democrats want to try the detainees under civilian rules, whereas many Republicans wanted to hold them under military law. The debate stems primarily from the definition of 'combatant'.

There is no question of Hasan being subject to the UCMJ. In addition, since the action took place on a military facility and was directed primarily against military personnel, there should be no argument as to who has jurisdiction. Even so, you can bet there will be an effort to remove the trial from military jurisdiction, probably citing 'fairness' and 'bias' as a concern.

[Giant Communist Robot]

His only defense would be insanity

The M'Naughten rule, as far as I know, is part of common law and not the UCMJ.

[Giant Communist Robot]

JEEZ, what is it with Jihadists and strip clubs?

It looks like Homeland Security and others will have to spend a lot of time in strip clubs to keep an eye on things.

[dai bread]

People who have odd ideas about the status of women seem to have an affinity for strip clubs. I've come across it before; though not in connection with jihadists or Muslims, at least not as far as was ever disclosed.

[Giant Communist Robot]

Well, getting up off my lazy okole and googling things, I find the M'Naughten rule is used in the UCMJ. It's a rare occurance and almost never successful as the criteria for proving impairment looks quite high.

[Giant Communist Robot]

People who have odd ideas about the status of women seem to have an affinity for strip clubs. I've come across it before; though not in connection with jihadists or Muslims, at least not as far as was ever disclosed.

I think in Christianity going to strip clubs might be some kind of sin, but what about Islam? Most clubs (I assume) have some kind of cover charge that requires you to buy some alcohol. If eyeballing and drooling over semi-naked women is a problem in Islam then maybe that, combined with buying a drink, could cause enough guilt to push someone to an extreme act.

[jamiebk]

This: From a website regarding the 5 pillars of Ilsamic religion:

The law of Islam forbids public nudity and orders Muslims to use decent and dignified dress. Muslims are called upon to practice moderation in this area as well. One of Muhammad's companions once said, "Eat what you wish and wear what you wish if you can avoid two things: extravagance and conceit." In dress and behavior, Muslims are to be modest.

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty;
that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is Well-Acquainted with
all that they do. And say to the believing womenthat they should lower their
gaze and guard their modesty; that they should no display their beauty and
ornaments..." (Qur'an, An-Nur:30-31).

According to the Prophet's tradition, no man should expose his body from the navel to the knees, nor should a woman expose any part of her body except her face and hands while in public. This is called "covering" and to keep these parts covered is the religious duty of every man and woman.Through this directive, Islam cultivates in its followers a deep sense of modesty, purity and respect.

Islam enjoins mankind to control and regulate sexual desires and seek its fulfillment only within the bonds of marriage.


Mr Hasan would not seem a very devout Muslim based upon his strip club visits.

[Shapley]

I think in Christianity going to strip clubs might be some kind of sin, but what about Islam? Most clubs (I assume) have some kind of cover charge that requires you to buy some alcohol. If eyeballing and drooling over semi-naked women is a problem in Islam then maybe that, combined with buying a drink, could cause enough guilt to push someone to an extreme act.

We Christians are supposed to avoid the sin of lust. I suppose one can go to a strip club and not lust, but why risk it? We are, after all, encouraged to avoid temptation.

Strip joints used to have a minimum drink requirement in lieu of, or in addition to, a cover charge. I've never heard of a stipulation regarding alcohol content in the drinks, but I believe they charged the same for plain cola as they did for a Whisky Sour. They can slip a Mickey in either one.

[Haggis@wk]

This morning on NPR, prefacing a discussion about Hassan, listeners were warned he is innocent until proven guilty. I believe this is wrong. Civilian law is based on British common law and in civilian courts this is true, but Hassan is under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is based on Napoleanic law--and he must prove his innocence.

Wow, I spent 24 years as a military criminal investigator intimately familiar with the UCMJ and never realized that.

Seriously, would you provide at least one credible source for that outrageous statement!?!!

The whole purpose of the UCMJ was to provide a legal system that takes the uniqueness of the military into account. Contrary to popular myths, most of the laws of the U.S. do not extend beyond our borders. Therefore without the UCMJ a service member who commits a crime outside the U.S. would face host country laws or none. In addition it provides for enforcement of uniquely military offenses, “Missing Movement” “AWOL” Desertion,” and my all time favorites “Forcing a Safeguard” and “Improperly Hazarding a Vessel”.

The UCMJ is found in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47 of the United States Code, a Code based on the Constitution that unsurprisingly is notoriously "Napoleonic lite."

It was written largely by Congress in 1950 to standardize the services various criminal codes, that’s the “Uniform” part of the UCMJ, and to eliminate earlier non-Constitutional punishments that had crept into the various military codes in the 200 years since military law was enacted in the U.S.

The Manual for Courts-Martial's (the codification of the UCMJ) preamble states the purpose of military law

"is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States"

.

The UCMJ actually required reading a suspect of his Article 31 rights against self-incrimination before being interviewed in 1951, fifteen years before the SCOTUS recognized that right for civilian suspects.

In addition, an accused facing the potential of a general court-martial (the most serious level of courts-martial) has far greater rights during a pretrial "Article 32" investigation than does a civilian suspect before a grand jury, the civilian counterpart.

It commonly accepted in the military that if you are innocent you'd rather be tried by a military court but if you are guilty you'd rather face a civilian court; you might get off in a civilian court.

[Giant Communist Robot]

provide at least one credible source for that outrageous statement!?!!

This is your idea of an outrage? You need to switch to decaf.

Did you miss this part of my post?

I believe

What kind of perspective does that give?

and

Wow, I spent 24 years as a military criminal investigator intimately familiar with the UCMJ and never realized that.

Is this sarcasm needed? Or is your point strong enough to stand on its own merit? My source was my instruction in the Army; if I've been misinformed, that's hardly outrageous. Maybe you'll get over it.