We are focusing on the wrong issues about the Ft. Hood Massacre.
Heeding the President's advice to not rush to judgment and form any hasty conclusions about that thing that happened in Ft. Hood, Texas a few days ago, I've waited until now to offer any comments about it. After all, when a self-professed jihadist guns down dozens of people — killing thirteen of them and sending scores of others to the hospital — all the while shouting Allahu Akbar, we don't want to come to any hasty conclusions about what was really going on.
Question #1:
In the months and weeks preceding that thing that happened at Ft. Hood last week, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan exchanged numerous emails with Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged Al Queda recruiter and the Imam linked to three of the 9/11 hijackers. These emails were intercepted by National Security Agency officials monitoring the communications of "overseas Islamic extremists." Despite these intercepts, no action was taken against Hasan.
This leads to the first question that demands an answer: Why hasn't George W. Bush been indicted for violating the civil rights of American citizens like Nidal Hasan by forcing Congress to adopt the Patriot Act which President Obama campaigned against, but hasn't yet gotten around to repealing?
Question #2:
Sgt. Mark Todd, one of the men who gunned down Hasan, told Good Morning America that it was "bystanders who pointed him and Sgt. Kimberly Munley in Hasan's direction as they responded to calls of shots being fired at Fort Hood last week."
This leads to the troubling second question that needs to be answered. Nidal was the only American of Islamo-fascist descent at the soldier readiness center where an alleged shooting was allegedly happening. Not only is this a clear case of racial and religious profiling, at no point was Hasan given an opportunity to peacefully surrender. Instead, these two anti-Muslim bigots opened fire on him, wounding him severely. When will these trigger happy "cowboys" be taken into custody themselves, and made to account for their reckless actions?
Question#3
According to news reports, Hasan had hoped that President Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and had gotten into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported both of these wars. Because of this, Mr. Hasan became very depressed and prescribed himself an antidepressant, which as the Physicians Desk Reference states, can cause mania, psychosis, abnormal thinking, paranoia, and hostility. At the very least, withdrawal from this drug can make a person very cranky, including being prone to crying spells and feeling achy all over.
Had the thugs who gunned down this US Army Major bothered to ask whether he was (a) taking medication — or conversely, withdrawing from medication he was taking and suffering an adverse reaction to it, and (b) taken even the briefest of moments to understand how disappointed Nidal Hasan might have been over the ongoing illegal, immoral wars being perpetrated against peaceful Islam, Nidal Hasan might not be lying in a hospital bed paralyzed from the waist down.
Moreover, if they were going to shoot this man who dared to exercise his First Amendment right to disagree with the ongoing war against peaceful Islam, the least they could have done was aimed a bit higher and killed him. Instead of watching his colostomy bag fill every day, he'd be enjoying the company of 72 virgins.
All of which leads to the third main question: Why haven't George W. Bush and Dick Cheney been prosecuted for war crimes? If they didn't unilaterally, without Congressional authorization, send troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, Nidal Hasan would be enjoying life as a practicing member of the Religion of Peace, instead of lying in his own filth in a hospital bed as yet one more victim of this tragic, misguided chapter of American history.
Question #4:
It's no coincidence that that thing that happened at Ft. Hood occurred just down the road from one of the worst mass shootings in US history, the October 1991 massacre at a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas.
In the words of the President's friend, mentor, and personal travel agent Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, the cause of that thing that happened in Texas was not radical Islam's distorted view of reality, but gun ownership. Take away the military's guns, and you take away the root cause of the problem, according to Daley.
Which leads to question #4: When will Dick Cheney be prosecuted for shooting that guy in the face a few years ago when they went dove hunting together? Justice delayed is justice denied.
Question #5:
Finally, there's a question about what thing was that thing that happened in Texas?
"Terrorism" disappeared in January 2009 with the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States, replaced by the more appropriate nomenclature "man-made disasters." All this got me to thinking about the recent man-made disaster in Fort Hood.
The only thing we know for certain is that what happened at Ft. Hood was not a terrorist act, because if it was, that means an act of terrorism on US soil would have occurred under the Barack Obama Administration.
So, in light of this I pose my fifth and final question. If a man-made disaster was responsible for the deaths and injuries of dozens of innocent people, shouldn't we start an aggressive effort to make sure there are no further man-made disasters looming on the horizon?
I propose an immediate plan of action whereby special attention is given to all bridges, dams, automobiles, and other "man-made" things that could spell "disaster" if they fail or are misused properly. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens by making sure that man-made disasters do not occur, and aggressively monitoring our bridges, dams, and automobile driving habits is the one sure way to accomplish this goal.
I'm sure the grieving relatives of the 13 people killed at Ft. Hood, as well as the others who were gravely injured by the man-made disaster which Nidal Hasan was somehow associated with, will take great comfort in knowing that our government is ahead of the curve on important stuff like this. Hopefully, by placing proper emphasis on these things, instead of looking for Islamo-fascist straw-men behind every jihadist who shouts Allahu Akbar when shooting innocent people, we can begin focus on what's really important in life: passing new health care legislation and promoting cap and trade.
Oh . . . and giving the appropriate "shout out" to non-existent Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who aren't even in attendance at a political event before addressing the nation about a man-made disaster which, we all know, is George Bush's fault anyway.
Inwood:
Re: “The main issue that Phil has brought up, in my opinion, is a, well, killer argument: the systemic PC wussiness of the Top Brass when it comes to obvious terrorists within their midst.”
I didn’t get that out of Phil’s article. In case you missed it, Phil became a liberal Democrat before the last election, and he’s merely asking questions that liberal Democrats would want answered.
As far as the top brass’ wussiness, they have been ordered by the civilian government to be wusses.
“But yet oh once more you want to attack my ideas & somehow separate them from me.”
I can’t believe someone would make a statement like that on an open forum dedicated to the debate of ideas. If you are that sensitive, may I suggest you find another forum more conducive of your sensibilities?
sedonaman
Phil is writing satire; using irony. Sorry you missed it.
This is not your site. Any suggestion, especially a stentorian one, that I get off this site is not yours to make. (Actually, you are being puerile.)
And I don’t understand your contumely. Look, you still haven’t “debated” my ideas, you’ve trivialized them, ridiculed them. OK, I can take a punch. But now you get super sensitively upset-ty-poo when I punch back, call you on it & try to get you to actually discuss my ideas. You should be able to understand them. They’re not abstruse. They’re not anomalies. So why your half-ass suppurating attempt at derogation & a repeat of your claim that you’re just disparaging my ideas not me? Do you not understand the meaning of “disconnect”?
P
Now that we have discussed the psychobabble reasons that the jihadist Major did his murderous terrorist act & how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, er, how many MPs can be used to defend Army personnel, may I suggest some answers to your QQ 1-3?
First of all, I think that The One should add to the list for his world-wide apology tours an apology for the fact that these GITMO miscreants, um, victims have been so incarcerated for so long.
Actually, The Hon Holder has supplied the answers: under the guise of a trial of the murdering terrorists at Gitmo, this trial in the SDNY Federal Court will really be the trial of BushHitlerMcChimpyHaliburtonChaney & the CIA for being beastly to these terrorist killers, a/k/a, doing the things our guys did & not doing the things they shouldn’t have done that kept us safe & sound by preventing any post 9/11 domestic terror attacks. When will these cowboys be “bought to justice” for their unconstitutional fascist actions like enacting The Patriot Act? What? As you note, The One & the Dem congress haven’t repealed it yet? Nevermind. And those warrantless listening to conversations made to Al Queda. What would FDR have done? What? He wiretapped. Nevermind.
Holder’s plan (here really Obama’s, I presume) is simply throwing a bone to the Left. No more, no less.
This is plain & simple pre-9/11 mentality. Life is moot court to the guys in power here.
This trial & its procedural nonsense & its appeals, as if we were dealing with some US criminal, may become the 21st Century War Crimes version of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce & go on forever.
And these miscreants, um, victims will not be tried for every thing they have done since this would involve too much revealing of our secrets, known to the Left as our GESTAPO tactics.
And some body in the Mid East ain’t gonna call us with a tip if he feels that his name will be disclosed in some future trial in the US.
And lawyers will be falling all over themselves to defend these guys for the publicity.
And who will want to serve on the jury since if one does & finds these creeps, OOPS, alleged creeps guilty of spitting on the street, such juror will be the subject of a fatwa? As will his relatives & descendants unto the seventh generation.
And what if there is a mistrial? Or many mistrials? In general, the US public doesn’t like to see even the most horrible defendant tried & tried ‘til he’s convicted. I doubt that we can plea bargain with these guys.
And what if they are not found guilty because certain incriminating evidence is held back for reasons of National Security? Will we let ‘em walk? Who knows what nonsense lies in the minds of our current Administration?
And what a coward is The One. Letting his AG announce this nonsense when he is out of the country.
And how will this trial affect Healthcare, Cap n’ Trade & the rest of the Socialist Agenda which must be enacted now, gurgle, gurgle.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the analysis of the lead prosecutor of the blind sheik for the 1993 bombing of the WTC:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTVkN2ZhMTU0NzcwYWVmYTNmODI1ZTJjMTA1ZDFiODQ=
And The Maj’s trial will be another circus of blame America.
Inwood:
On second thought, I think your idea is great. Why don't you send it to your congressman?
sedonaman
I did call my congressman's office the other day. He is a Republican & the staffer who answered the phone did seem to agree with what I said. But who is he against so many?
I've always been fascinated by the Nuremberg trials. I think it was Churchill who said that we ought to just line the Nazis up against some wall & commence firing, but some good people (& I do mean that) felt that we needed a trial to show that we were "better" than the Nazis. (What the Soviets, who were every bit as bad as the Nazis, were on the court? Nevermind!)
Inwood (in North Manhattan), where I'm from, was known as "The Fourth Reich" & "Frankfurt am Hudson" because it had so many refugees from The Third Reich when it was still The Third Reich. Refugees who had seen the light before it was too late to escape. Tho I was a child, I remember that the adults were heartened by these trials & followed their progress religiously & felt some catharsis when some of these guys were hanged & were miffed when Hermann G. got a poison pill & escaped a public hanging. Hey, catharsis is good!
But when I studied the trials as an adult & a lawyer, I realized that they were not a model of American Trial justice & that more than a few people really knew that they were “Victors’ Justice”. We paid for this trophy, department. (For a contrary viewpoint, see: The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials, the 1992 memoir of the Chief US Prosecutor for most of the trials, Telford Taylor. Interestingly enough, Gen. Taylor – channeling Goering, who famously said that if Germany had won WW II it would be prosecuting Allied leaders as they were then prosecuting him – went to Hanoi with Joan Baez or Hanoi Jane in 1972 (don’t make me Google it) & thereafter argued that, by the standards established at Nuremberg, our conduct of the Viet Nam War could be equated to that of the Nazis. I served at that time on a Bar Association Military Justice Committee with his epigoni & had to listen to this drivel.)
And even those who approved of the Nuremburg Trials were upset that so few got the death penalty & so few of those sentenced actually served more than a few years in jail.
In fact, some of the "early release-es" were later killed by amateur avenging angels who thought that they deserved to be killed.
Now the Hon Holder tells us, wink, wink, that this is all a charade; that all these guys will be convicted because the case is so strong & that even if some dopey jury or judge finds them not guilty, well, they aren't gonna be let go, ya see. Obama agrees.
On the other hand, we're still gonna try some of the lesser guys in Military Courts, which court system is supposed, by the Best People, to be per se bad & harmful to the basic American sense of fairness. As some cynic (Clausewitz? Stanley Kubrick? Again, don’t make me Google it) once said “Military Justice is to Justice as Military Music is to Music”. I dunno; I think Sousa is great & the 1812 Overture… but I digress.
All this Obama farandole may still represent "Justice" in some larger sense, but it’s not a model for justice through a good old American Civilian Trial. So why?
My theory: Again, see the third paragraph of my #53. It’s the GOP, stupid.
P
Now here's something I never thbought of:
"Terrorists 'Saved or Created.'”
http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/terrorists-saved-or-created/
OOPS, Spellcheck: "thought" of
Inwood: my guess is there's more "saved" than created. You supposedly create terrorists by fighting them …
These “saved” & “created” concepts are Orwellian when it’s “Enron bookkeeping” re jobs & the loony left babbling about how, when we stop, before they can do so, the current terrorists who want to kill us, we are simply creating future terrorists who will kill us.
But then, we’re told that one man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter”.
BTW, up 'til some Death Panel got involved the other day, I understood that mammograms saved many (most) women from dying of breast cancer. Now I'm told that it's not worth the cost since so few are saved & many now can be saved from the discomfort of getting mammograms, or something. I guess it will be the same for prostate cancer with men.
P
Putting it another way:
Leftist illogic re terrorism is that
• Killing terrorists creates more terrorists. It’s like being in one of those cheap horror movies, where the actor squashes a bug & it morphs into two bugs & when the actor squashes those two bugs, they morph into four, etc.
Non-Leftist Logic is that
• Killing a terrorist means one less terrorist to kill us & serves as a warning to would-be terrorists that we are not to be terrorized.
• Saving a terrorist means that he lives another day to kill you or, & if he’s imprisoned rather than killed, he lives another day to be further saved by ACLU lawyers who engage in what we lawyers call "Motion Practice", both of which results create more terrorists in the original terrorist's milieu since these louts then see that terrorism has no real downside & can lead to lots of fun & rewards like 72 virgins.
By the way, isn't the 72 virgins deal a ponzi scheme?
Anyway, the Dems have actually created a job for Bush 43: Blame Czar. Whatever is not working (any of their things, since Socialism never works) even after Big Laws have been enacted is Bush's fault. Just get a photo of him dedicating his new library at SMU & flash it on the TV screen with a laundry list of what he's responsible for. I sent an e-mail to Bush's library site suggesting that he bow down to the SMU president, but they haven't got back to me yet.
P
Wait. I forgot:
Congressional Districts created.
P
Here's more about alleged "savings" from the NYT:
(From Althouse Blog):
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/pain-relief-through-photos/
"Forget the medical treatments. Forget even the pain pills.
We'll save even more money if we just get these women who are bitching about pain to hold their boyfriend's hand or look at a picture of their kid.
"More proof that the epic dystopias predicted by earnest movie producers and sci-fi authors as coming from the Nazi right, whatever that is, is, as predicted and predictable, coming to us from the left. As it would.
"These ideas don't exactly spring from the minds of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan…but the lefties persist, and I have a feeling they know the results of authoritarianism, but they like it, with that little gleaming twinkle of being Naughty.
"They are mentally unbalanced, lunatics."
See also
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/can-meditation-curb-heart-attacks/?hp
Great. To avoid costly illnesses & prolonged pain when sick, as well as prostate trouble surgery, I’ll listen to Massenet’s Meditation from Thais while looking at Playboy
Inwood: You are on a roll :)
P
Thanks, but, a request.
Can you tell me who's in charge of the GOP & who's gonna save the GOP? Or create a new GOP more to the liking of The Best & The Brightest? You know the ones who voted for The One & Joe The Biden.
I mean, first The Best & The Brightest decreed that it was Rush, then Glenn Beck, then Liz Cheney, & now it's Sarah Palin in charge, but it was decreed at the same time that each of them was gonna destroy the GOP which could only be saved by a "moderate" Republican, with credentials from the right college (I mean of the above, only Liz even went to college, for crying out loud) like, say, Arlen Specter, but then they saw that even he had enough smarts to leave before doomsday.
P
Wait. Can you also tell me who's in charge of the Dem party & who's gonna save it?
I mean, it's getting so that the Dems don't even know who to bow down to.
Inwood: The inmates are in charge of both asylums.