A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on November 14th, 2009 in US News

A so-called moderate:

The issue is not whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan committed a terrorist act. He did.

Here is a prime example of reporting opinion as fact. Terrorism has a very specific, and legal, definition: (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

So, to be “a terrorist act” we would need to prove:
1) Hasan’s act was premeditated;
2) Hasan’s act was politically motivated; and
3) he was a clandestine agent of a subnational group.

The first part is easily seen as true. Hasan went out and bought weapons specifically to do this. The second and third are not quite so cut and dried.

What was the political motivation behind Hasan’s act? What policy did he hope to impact? Did he expect to show the Army that they have to leave Iraq or Afghanistan? At best, it can be guessed that he might hope to provide Muslims a means of claiming conscientious objector status when the Army acts in Muslim countries. This seems like a stretch to me – and there is no evidence to support that as his goal.

Nor is there evidence that he was a clandestine agent. There is evidence he contacted Al Qaeda, but there is no evidence that Al Qaeda was interested in Hasan at all. There is no quid-pro-quo, which is necessary for establishing someone’s identity as a clandestine agent.

I believe that the problem is one of a classic spree-shooter. Particularly, the idea of a shame/anger loop seems to fit with the image emerging of Hasan. It should be noted that spree shooters often attempt a military life. While guesses about his psychology are just that – guesses – it is still possible to piece together things rationally – and to reject irrational conclusions:

What is clear is that Major Hasan was a troubled, conflicted individual. Some are calling him a terrorist, which means, literally, the systematic use of terror (a state of intense, extreme fear or anxiety), especially as a means of coercion. I’m not certain what Hasan was hoping to coerce by his actions — perhaps an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? — and I’m not sure he was very systematic about it, since he chose a place where most of have never been, seen or knew much about (an Army training camp). But indeed, if his aim was to induce terror, I’m certain he was successful that day.

As I stated elsewhere, Hasan’s actions were terrifying, but that doesn’t make it terrorism. Not all hateful actions meet the definition of terrorism. And if it isn’t terrorism, then it shouldn’t be called terrorism.

Why? Because doing so implies that Major Hasan could not have been stopped, other than by simply throwing him out of the military – which, by the way, would simply have released him on an unsuspecting and even-more-unprepared civilian population. There were numerous warning signs that Hasan was not dealing with his position as Army psychiatrist in a healthy manner. But it was deemed as being too difficult to get rid of him – which means that no one wanted to actually sit down and document each action and try to implement a plan to improve his behavior. Instead, they opted to punt him down the road to his next command.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been in the military. Heck, even corporate America would rather shove someone to one side than go through the difficulty involved in firing someone. This is why the Peter Principle was discovered. It applies very well in Fort Hood – because Hasan couldn’t handle being at Walter Reed and dealing with patients who were coming back from war, it was hoped that they could move him sideways and he would be able to deal with patients who were getting ready to go to war.

So what is the benefit of calling this case of spree-murder an act of terrorism? Well, it reinforces the idea that the problem is Muslims, or some perversion of Islam. I have no problem with saying that our battle in Afghanistan is exactly that, but applying it to Major Hasan is a dangerous precedent. It’s dangerous because it would result in people being identified by their religious belief and declared unfit for military duty – which means they are simply discharged and left to their own devices.

Think of it this way, throwing Hasan out of the Army doesn’t change anything, other than the site of his spree. Would it be better, I would ask, if he’d been thrown out and decided that he wanted to open fire in Virginia (where he lived) in a shopping mall at Christmas? No.

What would have been better would be if the Army had diagnosed his oncoming psychosis and stuck him in Walter Reed as a patient, rather than as a doctor. But the thing is – you can’t stick someone in a hospital (or a prison) for their religious beliefs. But you can hold them for evaluation based on the fact that they are angry, agitated, and having disconnected thought processes.

There’s another thing gained by blaming Hasan’s actions on his religion – it relieves the military of even considering how many other active duty soldiers might be in similar psychic straits. It’s much more comforting to think of it as a process of someone’s religion, and then target that. It’s always easier to think of “the other” as being monstrous. It’s more difficult to confront the monsters within.

Sphere: Related Content