Political correctness kills.

Now we are learning that Dr. Hasan, the murderer of Fort Hood, was cut enormously more slack than any non-Muslim would have received. He retained his position only because of his minority status.

“Two years ago, a top psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was so concerned about what he saw as Nidal Hasan’s incompetence and reckless behavior that he put those concerns in writing. NPR has obtained a copy of the memo, the first evaluation that has surfaced from Hasan’s file.

Officials at Walter Reed sent that memo to Fort Hood this year when Hasan was transferred there.

Nevertheless, commanders still assigned Hasan — accused of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood on Nov. 5 — to work with some of the Army’s most troubled and vulnerable soldiers.

The Damning Memo

On May 17, 2007, Hasan’s supervisor at Walter Reed sent the memo to the Walter Reed credentials committee. It reads, “Memorandum for: Credentials Committee. Subject: CPT Nidal Hasan.” More than a page long, the document warns that: “The Faculty has serious concerns about CPT Hasan’s professionalism and work ethic. … He demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment and a lack of professionalism.” It is signed by the chief of psychiatric residents at Walter Reed, Maj. Scott Moran.

(more…)

From the Rasmussen pollsters: Obama’s decision to bestow American civil rights on the worst terrorists in court is not appreciated by a majority of citizens.

Furthermore, the imperiousness of this administration to jam through its extreme agenda despite the danger to the public is becoming very concerning. Surely al Qaeda will be inspired to mount an even more destructive attack on New York City during the trial.

“Fifty-one percent (51%) of U.S. voters oppose the Obama administration’s decision to try the confessed chief planner of the 9/11 attacks and other suspected terrorists in a civilian court in New York City.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% of voters favor the president’s decision not to try the suspects by military tribunal at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba where they are now imprisoned. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure whether it was the right decision or not.

Only 30% of Americans said suspected terrorists should have access to U.S. courts, while 54% favored military tribunals in July 2008, as the first such tribunal got under way at Guantanamo.

Still, 58% of voters now are at least somewhat confident that New York City will be safe and secure while the trials are going on. Yet only 20% are very confident of that fact. Thirty-eight percent (38%) are not very or not at all confident that New York will be safe during this period. “51% Oppose Decision To Try Terrorists in New York City [11/17/09]

Thomas Sowell nails the stunning arrogance: Obama’s Bow to “World Opinion”

“In the string of amazing decisions made during the first year of the Obama administration, nothing seems more like sheer insanity than the decision to try foreign terrorists, who have committed acts of war against the United States, in federal court, as if they were American citizens accused of crimes.

Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Convention, nor are they among those covered by it.

But over and above the utter inconsistency of what is being done is the utter recklessness it represents. The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993. Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense— information that told the Al Qaeda international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it.”

Lionel McIntyre [email him] is Nancy and George Rupp Associate Professor in the Practice of Community Development at Columbia University. His recent efforts in the practice of community development include getting arrested for punching a white woman in the face. (Allegedly.) They were discussing “white privilege.” McIntyre is a professor, the privileged victim “works as a production manager in the school’s theater department.” It is not possible for the press to ignore the racial aspects of this story completely, but look at the headlines:

Prof busted in Columbia gal ‘punch’

Why was the Palestinian Muslim terrorist / U.S. Army major such a hot potato for the mainstream media last week that they tried various misdirection ploys, such as the New York Times‘ November 7th article “When Soldiers Snap“?

A few reasons:

1. The press has indoctrinated itself to despise stereotypes, partly for ideological reasons, partly for economic ones–“Man Bites Dog” is a better headline than “Dog Bites Man.” Yet another Palestinian Muslim terrorist is a “Dog Bites Man” story.

2. Another reason is that Major Hasan is such a classic example of “dual loyalties.” We’ve all been told over and over again that the entire concept of dual loyalties is a baseless anti-Semitic smear and therefore doesn’t exist.

In truth, of course, multiple loyalties are an unavoidable reality of life, which is precisely why George Washington’s Farewell Address (the single most carefully considered utterance by the Founding Fathers — it was worked on over four years by Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay) devotes so much effort to warning about how to handle them. For example:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

3. There’s the Barack Hussein Obama angle. The press has a strong feeling that they must protect Obama from anything that could tangentially tarnish him. Of course, if they would just read Obama’s memoir carefully, they would see that Islam never had any appeal for him–it’s too universalist. The President liked all of The Autobiography of Malcolm X until the uninspiring conclusion when Malcolm converts from the Nation of Islam to orthodox Islam after seeing the races mix on pilgrimage in Mecca.

From the Washington Post:

Under a slide titled “Comments,” he wrote: “If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the ‘infidels’; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.” [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: “We love death more then (sic) you love life!”

Under the “Conclusions” page, Hasan wrote that “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam,” and that “Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly — will vary!”

The final page, labeled “Recommendation,” contained only one suggestion:

“Department of Defense should allow Muslims (sic) Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.”

Of course, conscientious objection status is only granted to pacifists, not to people who would rather hurt us than the enemy.

If he survives, the Ft. Hood shooter will of course be charged with murder, but it’s reasonable to inquire whether treason should also be charged. After all, for a major in the U.S. Army, trained at taxpayer expense in the use of weapons, to shoot 40 unarmed comrades-in-arms would seem like a reasonable example of waging war on the United States.

However, the Constitution’s delineation of treason might not cover this:

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. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

What does “levying war” mean? Although “levying” is sometimes today said to be the same as “waging,” that doesn’t appear to be the legal definition. In one of the the treason cases (Bollman) growing out of the still mysterious Aaron Burr conspiracy, the Chief Justice John Marshall of the Supreme Court ruled in 1807, “But there must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.” In other words, “levying” means raising a body of warriors. Therefore, whether Major Hasan plotted solely alone or was conspiring with others, and if so, did they in some fashion “assemble,” would appear to be relevant.

On the other hand, the second type of treason, “or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” would appear to be an easier hurdle to leap. The first time the Supreme Court upheld a treason conviction was in the 1947 Haupt case in which naturalized citizen Hans Mark Haupt was sentenced to life in prison for sheltering in his Chicago home his son, a German spy (one of the eight saboteurs landed by a German sub in a semi-farcical failed infiltration). The son was convicted by military tribunal and executed. In the father’s case, noted civil libertarian Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion upholding the father’s conviction, while Justice Jackson wrote a lonely dissent arguing that the father’s intentions were filial rather than treasonous.

Since the elder Haupt was legally guilty of treason for merely helping his son, then Hasan’s shooting two score American soldiers in cold blood would appear to be an even better example of “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” However, that does raise the issue of who exactly our Enemies are, a question that has been left rather ambiguous by Congress’ refusal to issue a Declaration of War since 1942.

Adrian Blomfield of the neocon Daily Telegraph does a great job of giving the Ft. Hood shooter’s Palestinian cousins in Ramallah in the West Bank (Ramallah is the capital of the Palestinian National Authority) enough rope:

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is the suspected shooter at Fort Hood U.S Army Post where according to authorities 12 people were shot and killed and 31 other were wounded Photo: EPA

Speaking from their home in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Hasan’s relatives painted a picture of a man cornered into an act of “lunacy” by the repeated discrimination of his peers and an attempt by the army to force him to serve in Afghanistan.

“They discriminated against him because he was a Muslim,” Mohammed Mohammed, one of Hasan’s cousins, told the Daily Telegraph. “We’re not trying to make excuses for him but what we were told was that he was under a lot of pressure.

“What we imagine is that he could not take this bad treatment and gave vent unfortunately.” …

In the house next door, Hasan’s brother Anas had locked himself indoors with his wife, refusing to speak to anyone, including his relatives.

According to his cousins, Hasan was badly scarred by the deaths of his parents in 1998 and 2001. Along with his two brothers, he became increasingly devout, they said.

“They became very religious after their mother died,” Mohammed Hasan said. “They were very observant. They prayed a lot.”

Yet the two cousins insisted that the major’s religion was not tinged with political fanaticism, although they said he had become increasingly withdrawn and uncommunicative in recent years.

(more…)

William Saletan [Email him] writes in Slate

“Fort Hood, Texas, hosts tens of thousands of men who are trained to fight for their country. But none of them stopped Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as he blew away 13 of their colleagues Thursday afternoon. It was a civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who confronted and shot him in an exchange of gunfire.”[Girls in the Hood | If women can defend Fort Hood, they can defend America. By William Saletan, November 6, 2009]

That’s stupid–the reason that none of the servicemen present on the scene shot Major Hasan because none of them had a gun. The Army has a mania for keeping loaded guns away from soldiers, which it not only exercises at Fort Hood and Fort Dix, but in Iraq, Afghanistan and on the Mexican Border.

Women can make good police officers, in spite of their physical weakness, but they can’t do ground combat.  Fred Reed explains why:

(more…)

The alleged Fort Hood shooter turns out to be alive, and there’s been a weird suggestion that he got Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from listening to war stories from patients:

“He would tell us how he would hear things, horrific things,” said cousin Nader Hasan, adding that dealing with soldiers returning from war zones was “affecting him psychologically.”

It is a cruel irony that the very mental disorder Maj. Hasan was trained to treat may have claimed him as a victim. PTSD is increasingly being linked to suicide and violence among troops returning from overseas combat. Media reports indicated Maj. Hasan is single with no children.[National Post]

He may have been unhappy hearing about the war, especially if he was an enemy sympathizer, since he would then feel bad hearing about successful operations as well as scary one, but that’s not the same as PTSD. You can’t get post-traumatic stress disorder without actual trauma.

From the Austin American-Statesman’s blog

Home > The Blotter > Archives > 2009 > November > 05 > Entry
McCaul says suspect had special training in shooting, parents hailed from Jordan

By W. Gardner Selby | Thursday, November 5, 2009, 05:40 PM

U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, who has been briefed on the shootings at Fort Hood, said one suspect, Nadal Malik Hasan, was a physician who was born in Virginia to parents who hailed from Jordan.

He said he didn’t yet have the names of two other suspects.

“The background of these individuals is going to be critical,” McCaul said.

Hasan, McCaul said, “took a lot of advanced training in shooting.” He said he’s not sure why.

He said Hassan, with others, acted at Fort Hood using handguns.

“They did a tremendous amount of damage,” he said, considering they did not have AK-47s.

“It’s clear this was a coordinated attack,” McCaul said, adding that some have attributed it to the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder, though it’s premature to say so. “It’s too early to jump to any conclusions.”

McCaul said he also has been told that Hasan had undergone rehabilitative alcohol counseling.

“Whether it was domestic or foreign, clearly when a U.S. military base is attacked in this kind of fashion, that is an act of terror in my book,” McCaul said.

If you remember The Godfather, you may remember that Michael Corleone was also the child of immigrants whose parents didn’t want him to go into the military. The fact that may have been born in Virginia doesn’t mean this isn’t an immigration story.