Yesterday, Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence committee called the attack at Ft. Hood acts of "terrorism." In an interview today on CNN, he repeated his accusation, saying that people shouldn't leap to conclusions, but still saying this is terrorism because it is the tactic of Islamic Jihadists to recruit US soldiers to attack US targets.
Now, notwithstanding the fact (and Rep Hoekstra had no answer for this either), that the FBI has reviewed the communication between Major Nidal Hasan and a radical Muslim cleric who formerly lived in Falls Church, VA - and commented that NO communication between the two indicated any attempt to 'recruit' Major Hasan or incite him to attack US soldiers or otherwise, to Rep Hoekstra, the mere fact that Major Hasan is Muslim opposed our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and that there are radical Islamic sites he might have visited, despite the fact that he acted alone, means that it was terrorism - and reflected this 'tactic' - but hey, he's not jumping to conclusions.
Further, Rep Hoekstra was miffed with the FBI and CIA for not giving him a briefing the DAY AFTER it happened, but rather waited until yesterday, because Rep Hoekstra had returned to Michigan for the holiday break (Thanksgiving), and 'they knew' he was leaving - so to get this straight Rep Hoekstra demanded a briefing before they had concluded ANY sort of investigation - he needed he HAD to have HIS briefing on HIS schedule because waiting until Monday to fly home, rather than Saturday, well that just didn't fit with his schedule - so shame on the FBI - they should give briefings before they have anything substantive to say - to some Congress-schlep who they don't report to and doesn't NEED to know today - right now-- in fact, they should take time away from perhaps finding other people involved JUST to brief this guy.
I make that point rather strongly to point out what a schmuck the guy is - his claim that 'we shouldn't leap to conclusions (what President Obama asked for and he agreed with) - while LEAPING to the conclusion that this is terrorism' is just bald-faced hypocrisy.
What's worse is that there is zero evidence that we know of that this guy was acting in concert with anyone. He MAY have been an Islamic radical - but exactly how would you stop people like him? How will our 'war on terrorism' stop individuals who simply disagree with a governmental policy - which I bring up because IF it was terrorism then frankly, our strategies to confront it should work - which helps to illustrate in part, that it isn't - terrorism ISN'T defined as any violent act of dissent against a government.
What's more - when confronted about Timothy McVeigh - Rep. Hoekstra commented that THIS WAS DIFFERENT - because McVeigh wasn't succumbing to the tactics of Jihadists - even though McVeigh CLEARLY worked with, was familiar with, radical militia groups who advocated - oh I don't know- violent acts of dissent against the government.
Terrorism is commonly defined as....
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Major Hasan's "ideology" was that he felt Muslims shouldn't be required to serve in combat areas against other Muslims - he personally opposed his deployment and made plain why. He opposed our participation in - and conduct of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to be sure, but at this point the only thing we know is that he was most strongly motivated by opposition to deployment of Muslims, especially himself. His 'coercion' was specifically in relation to himself - and I'll add one more point - he attacked soldiers, not civilians - while the definition above makes no distinction - the common usage does - we consider terrorism (most commonly) to be attacks upon civilians - the innocent non-combatants rather than wreaking your vengeance upon the war-making ability of those whom you oppose. Major Hassan took his grievance to those who were going to deploy him and the Army itself - the initial victims were certainly defenseless, but hardly what we would call 'non-combatants'. While his acts, in my mind, were horrific, and the worst form of "protest" imaginable - he in fact took his fight to those who have the obligation to fight - he didn't kill a doctor in a church.
Time will tell if he was acting for some larger Islamic fundamentalist principal - at this point we don't know - but using this attack for political purposes is despicable and repugnant. If we are now going to define any attack by any individual as 'terrorism' when it is in protest to something they don't like - well, we have an impossible problem to solve ahead of us. Claiming that this as about Islamic extremism before the facts are in, simply because it gets you political mileage, is race-baiting, religious-baiting ugly bigotry done purely for that political gain. McVeigh, who consorted with and complained with all kinds of anti-government nutjobs - well that was 'different' apparently and only because he wasn't a Muslim. But now, apparently, if it is convenient, we'll use a standard that would have us define the acts of fratricide committed in Vietnam by US soldiers upon their officers - as a protest to poor orders, or as a protest to their presence 'in-country' or for any of a myriad of reasons, well, apparently all that was 'terrorism' too - why?? Simply because it's convenient to claim that Muslims love terrorism, their acts are somehow different, and because we want to claim that Obama isn't 'keeping us safe.' I wonder then, what we call the hand-grenade attacks in Kuwait and Iraq's green zone by US soldiers? Was that not also terrorism, or is it NOT terrorism simply because they weren't Muslims and maybe while they read radical sites protesting government actions - well that's okay, because it wasn't at least radical MUSLIM sites...
This is political grandstanding, ugly, repulsive political, blindered, myopic grandstanding, and nothing else.
Hoekstra was simply following the rush to judgement, to fear mongering, started by good ol' Joe Lieberman on Fox who said much the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI thought at first that this was just a bad knee jerk reaction on the part of those ideologically right...until someone else connected some dots.
Insurance doesn't pay claims on acts of terrorism. This would include life insurance claims, property damage claims, you name it. Calling it terrorism - and I think it was far more egregious when Lieberman did it - is shrewd, it is profitable, not just bad ideology.
The democratic party was right that Joe Lieberman isn't any democrat, he's obviously independent to the extent he will say and do anything to get his way... whatever way that might be. Like many politicians of both parties, he says what he thinks people want to hear.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, what these politicians are engaging in is racism and bigotry. There isn't any nice way to say it, and their opponents in the next election should make a point of bringing this up repeatedly, so that their bigotry and racism is exposed to the voters that elected them. Now, maybe that will do some good, or maybe it won't, but if it doesn't do any good, and they get elected anyway, it tells us something about the people who voted for them, doesn't it?
Every indication is that he acted alone. That said his actions were cheered by the Imam he talked to in Yemen. I think the big failure here is on the part of the army and high up in the army. I don't care if they were chatting about Sunday football, if the FBI goes to the army and says one of your majors made 20 phone calls to a guy on Yemen's most wanted terrorist list, while we are at war with Islamic terrorists, you don't ignore it. Especially if the guy has been investigated for suspicion of posting on Islamic Extremist websites in support of the people we are fighting against, not to mention the bad review at Walter Reed for going off on rants about how wrong we are for being in Iraq and Afghanistan while counselling patients who just got back. Does anyone think it would have been ok in WWII for a US major to call one of top German generals to chat about strudel? 20 times? The signs were there that this guy did not belong in the army. The people who practically forced him to stay (several relatives say he tried to get out) did so either because we are so short on psychiatrists that they felt they had to keep him, or they were worried about looking like they were discriminating against Muslims. Either way 13 soldiers are dead. Someone in the army (start with his commanding officer) needs to come up with some answers about why he was still in the army.
ReplyDeleteI found myself wondering how Hasan resembled and differed from other shooters 'with agendas', with complaints against a group of people.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes sense to me was that domestic terrorists like McVeigh had an agenda that intended to substantially alter the government and society of the US. Ditto the right wing extremist neo-nazi shooter at the Holocaust museum. Both wanted to see a signficantly revamped US.
The similarity I see between Hasan and say the shooter who went on a rampage a few years ago at Virginia Tech, or another example, the kids who went berserk shooting people in Columbine High School also hated a group of people -- in the case of Virginia Tech, those who were more successful, popular, and presumed more affluent than the shooter. Columbine shooters hated those who were more socially acceptable, etc.
I don't know into which group Hasan will appropriately belong, because we just don't know enough yet. We don't have full access to the communications between Hasan and the Imam in question, but so far NOTHING has been released to the public that actually states any encouragement to extremist action occurred from the Imam to Hasan, such as to go on a shooting rampage.
Hasan seems to have wanted out of the army. Heck, I'm concerned this guy was ever licensed as an MD, much less a shrink. Hasan appears to have wanted all Muslims in the army to have the option of not going to war against their fellow muslims. An unreasonable expectation; certainly believers of other faiths do not have this kind of exemption, nor is it one that is ever likely to happen. We DO have formal provisions for conscientious objectors, but Hasan does not appear to have met those criteria at the front end of his military career.
Was Hasan an increasingly devout muslim? It appears so. Was he an extreme, radical muslim fundamentalist? That is less clear.
The big question however is, was his intent to declare war on the United States, was he hoping to participate in overturning our government and our society? Or did he just 'snap' and act out - as other Americans have done - against a much smaller, more specific group, consistent with disgruntled employees, nut-job student shooters, and others?
In other words, is Hasan a terrorist? Or did he simply 'go postal'? I'm thinking the latter, at least until more solid information is forthcoming.
DG said " but so far NOTHING has been released to the public that actually states any encouragement to extremist action occurred from the Imam to Hasan". Now granted it was after the fact but the Imam cheered his actions and said no good Muslim should join the US military except to do what Hasan did. Their relationship goes back to when Hasan was in medical school in Virginia several yrs ago before the Imam was deported. I just find it hard to believe that at some point he did not express similar sentiments especially since preaching similar things is why he was deported. Also it is now coming out the it was not one bad review at Walter Reed but a 6 yr history of bad behaviour and anti-American rants. So his rants and behaviour were not just due to his being deployed since they started a good 5 yrs before there were plans to deploy him. What it comes down to is extremists have no place in the military. And I am not being predjudiced against Muslims here, if some is an Islamic extremist, Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, La Raza, or any similar group, they do not need to be in the military. You cannot have people that believe if you are not the same race, religion, or whatever as them you are inferior in an organization where your life depends on being able to absolutely trust the people around you. The problem is how the military would find out but with this guy the signs were there and when he tried to go someone should have bitten the bullet and said we made a mistake and spent a ton of money on a guy that does not fit and needs to go.
ReplyDeleteTtuck wrote:"Their relationship goes back to when Hasan was in medical school in Virginia several yrs ago before the Imam was deported. I just find it hard to believe that at some point he did not express similar sentiments especially since preaching similar things is why he was deported."
ReplyDeleteYou might want to check out and doubly verify some of your information tt; it's my understanding that the Imam in question LEFT the U.S. voluntarily, and was NOT deported.
If you find that fact of his deportation to be incorrect, you might want to double check some of the other 'facts' further as well.
La Raza is NOT an extremist group either; they're more like an hispanic Kiwanis or Rotarian group than they are like the Black Panthers or KKK.
This guy IS alive, he is talking. We can find out from him, from the information he actually wrote and said before he started shooting, and his explanations after, what he did and did not think or intend, and whether or not he is a terrorist or just a garden variety problem individual who 'went postal'.
Until that intention is established better it is premature to classify this as terrorism - which has a precisely defined legal meaning (ToE? would you care to elaborate? I defer to your expertise, otherwise I could look it up and post it here.)
We can afford to wait to label this event, to do so correctly. I have to believe that the preliminary indicators are he went postal, given the charges available to the authorities and what they selected as appropriate to pursue.
When there is a lot of media 'noise' as there has been in this case, I always find it practical to dig down to the facts and block out as much of the uniformed sound bytes as possible. In this case that would seem to include Hoekstra and Lieberman, among others.
sorry - that should be 'uninformed' not uniformed sound bytes. Usually that would be obvious, but given the military references in this case, I thought it needed clarification.
ReplyDeleteI was wrong about alWiki, apparently he had been investigated for terrorist ties since 1999, in 2001 his phone number was found in the German apartment of one of the 9/11 hijackers. Earlier in 2001 3 of the hijackers and Hasan attended a mosque he preached at. In 2006 the FBI found more evidence of ties to Al Queda and opened another investigation, when they did he left the country. He was known as a senior recruiter of english speaking muslims for Al Queda and has been banned from lecturing in Britain. He is currently wanted in Yemen for supporting terrorist acts and organizations including Al Queda and the Taliban. Whether you call it terrorism or murder really does not matter, Hasan was at least in part inspired by extremists. Just like the article on ToE's blog about the preacher in Kansas who claims to be Christian while preaching hate, Hasan was turning to Muslims who preach hate for his spiritual guidance.
ReplyDeleteTuck wrote:"Whether you call it terrorism or murder really does not matter, Hasan was at least in part inspired by extremists. Just like the article on ToE's blog about the preacher in Kansas who claims to be Christian while preaching hate, Hasan was turning to Muslims who preach hate for his spiritual guidance."
ReplyDeleteI would argue that it DOES matter, the reason we have differences in language defining crimes is precisely because there are important differences. I am not so willing to believe that just because someone shows an interest, they accept or embrace what is said. Hasan ALSO apparently regularly attended the same mosque regularly where there was NOT hate preached by the regular clergy. I've listened to and attended a rather large spectrum of speakers over the years, doesn't mean I embraced what each and every one of them taught (usually the opposite). Allow some room for simple curiosity in the equations.
We don't know fully, or even adequately what beliefs were held by Hasan -- YET. I argue we wait to find out before making judgements, until we are able frame a more informed opinion. As Obama pointed out, we need to let the investigations take their course, render judgement in the applicable jurisdiction, and evaluate our procedures to see if the rules were followed, and if they failed to prevent this, how and why they failed. I am not convinced that every eventuality is amenable to prevention, that every problem is sufficiently detectable, that some mistakes won't occur.
Until we can properly do those things, I find the attempts to make political gain from them - as SOME of the conservatives / republicans seem to be trying to do, is repugnant conduct, reprehensible in the extreme.
I would similarly categorize those who are having scared little girl hysterics over trying terrorist suspects inside the US under the usual rules of law. I use the phrase 'scared little girl' hysterics advisedly; even as a child, I was never easily frightened, or givne to hysterics. (I caused more than a few adults to have hysterics, and scared the daylights out of my parents in particular on a regular basis, but that is hardly the same thing....)
I think the main problem with Mohammad Atta being tried in New York is not so much being scared of him doing something as it is wondering why we are giving him a stage. He readily admitted that he was the planner of 9/11 so why not pronounce sentence and be done with it. We are spending a lot of taxpayer money on a trial for someone who has confessed to the crime and will only use trial as a circus.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Hasan let me just give you a scenario. Say a white guy hung out with KKK members for a few yrs, was still calling and writing the grand kleagle or whatever for advice, had been written up at work several times for rants about blacks, and one day walked into a room of blacks and started shooting while shouting "whites rule", would anyone have a problem saying that his association with the KKK influenced him? But when this guy does the same thing everyone is bending over backwards to say "we don't know if associating with Islamic extremists influenced what he did." I have never said all muslims are terrorists or extremists but Hasan chose to associate with ones that were.
It is late and I got the wrong guy in the last post, it is not Mohammed Atta, it is Khalad Sheik Mohammed.
ReplyDeletett wrote:"Say a white guy hung out with KKK members for a few yrs, was still calling and writing the grand kleagle or whatever for advice, had been written up at work several times for rants about blacks, and one day walked into a room of blacks and started shooting while shouting "whites rule", would anyone have a problem saying that his association with the KKK influenced him?
ReplyDeleteIt would depend on variety of things, including whether or not the hypothetical white supremacist in question shot white people as well as blacks, if he really did yell "whites rule" or if there was disagreement among witnesses about what he yelled, if he had other reasons than his white supremacist beliefs that were the cause of the shooting - like being fired, for example.
tt wrote: "But when this guy does the same thing everyone is bending over backwards to say "we don't know if associating with Islamic extremists influenced what he did."
There are conflicting statements about this guy being extreme in his islamic beliefs, and about what this man yelled or didn't yell. I am saying that we don't know the full facts of what happened and that we should wait to make claims of any kind, pro or against, until we do. I am not suggesting bending over backwards NOT to say he is a muslim extremist, I'm advocating we don't make any assumptions - ANY - until we know more, given conflicting reports.
tt wrote"I have never said all muslims are terrorists or extremists but Hasan chose to associate with ones that were."
I could say the same things about many fundamentalist Christians, but I differentiate between association with and action. Not doing so is what is meant by the phrase guilt by association. Instead, I would rather we have guilt by fact and guilt by action.
Nothing more, nothing less. It is hard to do; we tend to want everything to tie up into a neat little package. It doesn't, usually.
If this guy IS an extremist, then there is plenty of time for that to be established before we label anything. That SHOULD be the case as well in your hypothetical example, btw.
Let me make a distinction, tt.
ReplyDeleteWhen the crazy white right wing extremist killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, there were a lot of people on the right who wanted to assert that guy was just crazy, but not right wing or extremist or white supremacist.
How was that different from this?
1. It was the chief investigating agent from the FBI who called him a right wing extremist in press conferences, based on extensive information, including the information in his car, his past arrests, statements by his family. There was really nothing that indicated otherwise, but it was inappropriate to call him that until the appropriate authorities applied the label after investigating.
2. The shooter was dead; there wasn't going to be anything further that was forthcoming from HIM, directly, to further clarify anything. What there was to learn was old.
In this instance, the alleged shooter's family and clergy, witnesses and victims, have made statements which contradict your conclusion, the investigating authorities have made a point of saying they don't know yet and the media has only very incomplete 'leaked' information, the (alleged) shooter IS alive and talking with authorities so there is something more to wait to hear.
I don't have any respect for either Hoekstra or Lieberman, particularly not the way they are using this event politically AND they BOTH seem to be talking out of school - by which I mean making big speeches while the investigation is incomplete and which they are not conducting, and apparently contrary to what they should be saying. Someone really needs to explain to these two idiots about loose lips, sinking ships,etc. - and this isn't the first time, especially for Hoekstra.
I'm not saying Hasan IS or IS NOT a terrorist, and I'm certainly not suggesting you are anti-muslim. I do think Hoekstra, Lieberman, and those who oppose the appropriate trial of the terrorists in New York however are playing to that fear by some - the same fear that the opposition tried to stir up in claiming Obama was muslim. There IS a segment of the population that is, and unfortunately it is a bad part of the conservative / Republican base, a part which is too readily manipulated by calculating politicians.
I'm saying I don't know and you don't really know if this guy IS a terrorist or extremist either, but that with investigation and proper authorities releasing the information in press announcements to the media and the public we WILL know eventually andTHAT is the correct time to use the term terrorist - when the investigators KNOW, and when WE KNOW.
18 USC 2331 defines terrorism as, "(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -
ReplyDelete(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;"
Note some specific requirements that would need to be met for the criminal definition of terrorism to apply here: AND occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. (emphasis supplied). Its an axiom of legal construction that Congress intends laws to mean what they do. The use of the word and means that the first to parts must apply: there must be finding that Major Hasan was intending to coerce the government or people to do something, and there isn't any indication at this point exactly what his intentions were. The second is that this occurred in the middle of Texas. While Texas might think of itself as separate from the US, it is not, and thus, is part of the territorial jurisdiction of the US. In short, Major Hasan in my opinion could not be reasonably be charged with terrorism under 18 USC 2331. He is charged with multiple counts of murder, and will face a military court martial. If they chose, I suppose they could also charge him under Texas law, and we all know that Texas has a express line for their death chamber...(including for the innocent) (NOTE: I am NOT claiming Major Hasan is innocent)
In cases like this where there are multiple eyewitnesses or if there is a confession, the appeals courts in Texas will usually rule that whatever happened in the trial would not have influenced the outcome. There was a case once where the defense attorney slept through half the trial but there were 2 reliable eyewitnesses and a confession, the appeals court said his attorney being awake would not have made a difference in the outcome. The federal court however reversed that and granted a new trial. The eyewitness testimony and confession were never questioned so they were still admissable and he was convicted a second time but with an awake attorney this time. Common sense wise the Texas appeals court was right but legally it is not really a fair trial if your attorney sleeps and the prosecution does not, so in that sense the federal court was correct.
ReplyDeletett, the case you describe where the lawyer slept through the trial -- you left out an important fact, the man convicted was mentally retarded. Why does that matter? I'm not suggesting it means he was incapable of committing a crime but rather that it strongly suggests he was incapable of fully participating in his own defense. In other words, he couldn't cooperate as well in understanding his attorny and the due process of court - something daunting to people more fully able on occasion.
ReplyDeleteHis mental capacity, and the pressure and duress under which his confession was exacted (without legal representation) make his confession suspect.
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, as evidenced by all of the people who are subsequently exonerated by things like DNA evidence.
Before the Feds tried to intervene in this case, it is my understanding that in the appeals process of the Texas courts, the decisions included the opinion that the lawyer was awake for 'enough of the trial' - which was on the order of 50% - that the courts didn't see the need for a do-over.
ToE, I noticed that the part you quoted said "international terrorism" I googled that part of the criminal code and if you go down to part 5 you find this.
ReplyDelete(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Now IF it turns out that his motive was to try to keep the military from sending people to Iraq or Afghanistan, or to try and convince the civilian populace that we should not be over there, that would fit pretty good with this definition. Of course he will either have to tell the authorities that was his motive or have written it down ahead of time somewhere.