- Connect
- Login
- Print Subscription
|
Welcome,
| |
| |
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« Opinion
Tragedy at Fort Hood begets more questions than answers
Tragedy at Fort Hood begets more questions than answers
Even before the dead are buried, the questions are being asked.
They must be asked, because as a people we need some type of answer when an inexplicable horror takes place. So it was when a federal building came crashing down in Oklahoma City. When two crazed classmates opened fire at Columbine High School. And now, after an Army psychiatrist, a man trained to give comfort and sworn both to protect his country and to do no harm, opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas. The toll at this writing stands at 13 dead and 29 wounded, with some of those wounded still in danger.
The starting point for all questions is Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the man who is alleged to have fired an estimated 100 rounds and who only stopped shooting after he was brought down by police.
New anecdotes emerge daily about Hasan’s opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, about his questioning how American Muslims could kill Middle Eastern Muslims (though, clearly, Middle East Muslims kill each other every day), about his complaints of being harassed, his attempts to get out of the Army and unsatisfactory reviews that led to his transfer to Fort Hood.
There will be investigations into every aspect of Hasan’s life by Army investigators, federal agents, state and local police, Congress and the press.
It is likely that much of what is uncovered will raise questions about whether Hasan was treated differently because of his rank, because of his minority status or because he had already complained about perceived discrimination against him.
Who is at fault?
But at the end of the day, if the facts bear out what is known now, the primary responsibility for his horrendous deeds will fall on Hasan, and he should be punished accordingly.
Certainly Hasan’s religion is and will be a central point in the debate. But it makes no more sense to blame Muslims for what happened at Fort Hood than to blame, for instance, Christians for the horrors perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan. History has shown that men will pick and choose scriptural snippets that justify their bad behavior. Few religions have been immune from being perverted by unscrupulous actors.
Some of the people coming forward to describe Hasan’s increasingly troublesome behavior are fellow Muslims. But it appears clear that few of his acquaintances, whether they shared Hasan’s religion or not, thought him capable of mounting a murderous attack on fellow soldiers.
Let the investigations continue, and as time goes by Americans may come to some understanding of what went wrong.
But for now, a nation that has become too accustomed to too many of its young men and women going off to die in foreign lands must mourn soldiers who died here, at home. Some had already seen war, some were preparing for it, but all were cut down before their prime. They have lost their lives; their families and friends have lost their love and comfort, and the United States has 13 more heroes.
- Requires free registration.
Comments
It is no mystery that if our soldiers carried side arms while on base they could have taken Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan out when he took aim on his first victim .
True statement. However, being a retired Army officer, I can assure you that it has never been the policy of the armed forces to allow soldiers to carry their combat weapons freely, except for training exercises or actual deployment missions. ALL military weapons are secured in unit arms rooms and are under 24 security systems. It has always been the assumption that a base not in a combat theater is generally secure and that normal physical security provided by the Military Police and/or civilian DoD police or contract guards is adqequate.
The Ft. Hood shootings show that in today's environment, the terrorist threat posed by radical Islam can strike anywhere and can inspire some followers to do terrible deeds.
The political correct apologists will be flapping their mouths about how this guy was a victim, he had mental problems, he didn't want to go to war, yada, yada. Here are some facts:
1. He volunteered to join the Army.
2. He volunteered to enroll in the DoD Uniformed Services Medical Univ.
3. In doing so, they agree that in exchange for the US taxpayer paying for a medical degree, they payback a set number of years of service for each year of tax payer provided education.
4. He signed a contract to enter the program.
5. He was identified at Walter Reed that he was not performing his job correctly and was counseled about it resulting in a adverse efficiency report. His anti-US outbursts and comment to other officers and soldiers put up the red flags. He should have been removed from active duty, and like others who do not fulfill their service contract, pay back the money expended for their education.
6. Political correctness has been pushed through the military for years by our politicians. Many have used the military as a captive social ground for experimentation, such as the gay issue, women in combat, quota promotions based on race, unions, etc. I saw it first hand, it is in policy, in the regulations, and in the written instructions to promotion boards.
7. This guy hasn't been out in the real Army yet. He has no war-time stress. He's only been outside the Beltway for a couple months at Ft. Hood. This is radial muslim influence, period.
I've already seen stuff in the media claiming that he couldn't go to war against fellow Muslims. That's an excuse, but Americans of German and Japanese decent fought against Germans and Japanese soldiers in WWII. Vietnamese fought against the VC, and I believe brothers fought against brothers in the US Civil War. Any defense or excuse based on that logic is garbage.
"The Ft. Hood shootings show that in today's environment, the terrorist threat posed by radical Islam can strike anywhere and can inspire some followers to do terrible deeds."
True political correctness would be to allow the defenders of America to protect themselves . Far too many were killed at Fort Hood by one enemy attacker . What would have happened if several shooters were involved against our disarmed troops ?
True. I totally agree that they could have stopped this nut very quickly. But the same thing would have happened if this guy went to a mall in Dallas. In that case there would have been large numbers of women and children killed instead of soldiers. Both are terrible scenarios. I personally have no problem with soldiers carrying weapons on bases, but due to the large numbers there, and the presence of civilians coming and going, it becomes a difficult issue to control weapons, ammunition, etc. A base is essentially a city, with women, children, visitors and other family member living there in addition to thousands of soldiers. The Armed Forces have always had the policy that military arms are locked up when not in use. If you own a personal weapon and live in the barracks as a single person, you must lock up our weapon in the arms room were the other military weapons are stored. If you live in family quarters, it is your home, just like a civilian house, and you keep your gun at home. You just can't decide that you are going to carry our machine gun, 9mm, or M-4/M-16 around all day with you. The issue will now become how to provide additional security and to what extent should there be a change to the current policies. Don't hold your breath though. I don't expect the Army or any of the other forces to change the current DoD policy regarding weapons on base. I've lived in on-base housing for most of my military career both in the US and in several foreign countries. Security is pretty tight, but dealing with someone within will be the challenge. The political correct crap has to stop. It has no place in society, and definitely no place in the military.
"The issue will now become how to provide additional security and to what extent should there be a change to the current policies."
There should be a push to allow our military to carry side arms on base . A few 9mm's carried by the troops would have put Hasan in his place when he first took aim . This slaughter at Fort Hood by the hands of one man should be an awakening .
Clark, you ought to get your #2 post to the Vindy as a letter to the editor. Too good for this forum.
Clark, I agree with borylie. your #2 post is too good for this politically correct forum.
The finger pointing has started. I can't believe that some analyst at the Nat. Terrorism Center decided that the 20 contacts Hasam had with the terrorist cleric was somehow part of his Master's degree thesis. This is nuts. First, any US officer of soldier that has direct contact with ANY terrorist needs to immediately be called on the carpet and questioned. Period. The ONLY contact with know terrorists should be between law enforcement, or intelligence agents. There was a very big ball dropped AGAIN. I've been retired a few years now, but if any one I served with EVER contacted a Communist agent, our butt would have been in very deep stuff fast. Oh yea. Communists are now on the White House staff, so I guess that's ok now. THAT IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM IN AND OF ITSELF. Sit back and watch how perverted this case becomes. THe politically correct media, the leftists in the Democrat Party, the ACLU, and all the typical nut job organizations will all be out there trying to apologize for this Islamic wacko. It will be a very pathetic show to watch.
Those who follow the politically correct agenda will work behind the scenes for Hasan . Conspiracy theories and distortion will be the norm . When the dust settles will Hasan be executed ?
Hasan's lawyer this morning claimed that he could not get a fair trial at Ft. Hood. First, I don't believe that. Having sat on Courts Martials, and also sent a few soldiers to be Courts Martialed, the UCMJ is actually FAIRER than civilian criminal proceedings. Civilians can be indicted by secret grand juries. This doe not happen in the military. There are NO secret grand juries. The Article 32 investigating officer serves as the "grand jury". He or she reviews the evidence, interviews whom ever they want under oath and then decides if the evidence merits moving the case to trial. The Article 32 officer recommends to the convening authority, in this case, the Commanding General of Ft. Hood, to either proceed to trial or dismiss the charges. Anyone going before a Courts Martial can ask to be represented by civilian or military counsel. Hasan has evidently chosen civilian counsel. Based on what the evidence appears here, he will be convicted and they can sentence him to death. Hopefully that is what happens. The senior officers that will make up the Courts-Martial panel are virtually free form outside influence and the media and politics won't make a difference.
I agree with Clark, after serving 22 years in the US Air Force, the court-martial is absolutely the most fair way for this guy to get tried. All politics aside or the fact of a fair trial or not. The man should be sentenced to death. I don't care what happened before the gunfire or after. There isn't but one fact in this case. It was his guns that were fired. It was his guns that murdered 13 personnel and wounded another 30+. What more is there to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? He needs to die.
Terrorism isn't terrorism; unless the suspect is a white male, hetero.
Hasan's guilt may be very evident to most people but his supporters will convince the weak minded that he was shot and tortured for a crime that he was not gulty of . Let's hope that justice is served before the memories of the public get dim .
I cannot believe that this dirtbag is still alive. I believe that the first officer that shot him but was wounded herself is a hero. The second officer is no hero, he could of saved us a lot of BS. Unless he is related to Barney Fife he no doubt had more than one bullet. I wonder if any victims were lost while efforts were spent on this scumbag?
The "dirtbag" and those who allowed him to go past all road blocks in the U.S. Military, to conveniently commit his religious crimes. should all be shot.
Some things defy logic . Hasan attacking our troops was logical . His views toward us were a very evident threat . On 9-11-01 that evident threat sufaced for all to see . What does defy logic is the fact that our defenders are disarmed on base . Is this to give the enemy a fair chance to kill ? Our police are armed at the police station so why shouldn't our soldiers be allowed to carry side arms on base ? In the immortal words of Teddy Roosevelt we should" SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK".
"YES WE CAN" ! We can be both politically correct and not allow our enemies to kill us .
One thing is for sure, he will never receive the death penalty in his Court Marshall. If he is convicted of murder the death penalty decision is left up to the president. No surprise there as to what his decision will be!!!
I found this article by chance -
http://www.lucasblog.com/archives/2009/1...
It puts to words a lot of things that are not politically correct, but ought to be said.
My thoughts (also not politically correct): dismember the guy alive on Saudi soil - arms and legs - and let him bleed to death. See if those 72 virgins come after his martyr carcass.
redvert, the correct term is Courts Martial. Like civilian court, all death sentences are reviewed. The military has not had an execution since 1961, I think. I recall a case in the 1980s, when a soldier killed a Warrant Officer's wife in a library on an Army base in Germany. The circumstances were brutal, but he got life instead of death. There was a lot of people pretty upset that this guy wasn't hung. By the way, the military's method of execution in the past has been hanging. If the Commanding General at Ft. Hood, as the convening authority for the Courts Martial accepts the court's verdict, which should be "guilty" and the death penalty, he can approve it or reduce it. No doubt, Hasan's attorney will file an appeal to the US Military Court of Appeals. After that, the next stop is the US Supreme Court. The case does not automatically go to the President for review or approval or disapproval. The President has constitutional power to grant clemency to anyone. Hasan is no different. It would be very stupid for Obama go get involved in this. In fact, there are provisions in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that specifically prohibits "undue Command influence". The UCMJ is approved by Congress and the Department of Justice and Supreme Court.
Who signed the order to transfer him to Fort Hood?
You are right clark, it is "courts martial", I forgot, it has been 40 years since my military service. I also should of said that obummer would have the final say since I am willing to bet it will go that far. This is the kind of case that can bring stardom to a attorney the likes of Sharpton or the ones that defended OJ.