Whats unbelievable about it? do you think there’s any chance whatsoever that Al Qeada can “win”?. They are like a two year old who gives you a shot in the nuts when you aren’t looking, it might have hurt but they will never be a real threat.
You mean his American military uniform? That’s clever, I guess. I’m not exactly sure if he was wearing civilian clothes or his military uniform, but it’s the fact that your set apart/identifiable from your enemy that counts. Also, if he was wearing his military uniform, and he hypothetically was apart of a terrorist group, then that’s perfidy/treachery, a war crime. It means he did not comply with Common Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions as amarone already correctly pointed out.
CA4 states you must comply with the below four requirements to get POW status (assuming you fight on behalf of a State, which al aqaeda does not):
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
He fails (b) and (d) so far.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force allows the President to use military force against those who planned, aided, or carried out the 9-11 attacks. If there is a law on the books that says that whatsoever people who were involved in attacking the WTC may be attacked by our military, it beggars belief that those people are not an “enemy” of the United States.
In your reading of international law, DtC, is there anyone whatsoever who carries out violence for an international political cause is not entitled to the title prisoner of war? I would appreciate some examples of what types of people would not be POWs under your view.
I ask this not because I am convinced that Major Hassan is a terrorist, but because the argument you have advanced so far in this thread leads me to believe that there is not.
Duh, pick any dictionary.
Onelook Dictionary
▸ noun: any hostile group of people (“He viewed lawyers as the real enemy”)
▸ noun: an opposing military force (“The enemy attacked at dawn”)
▸ noun: an armed adversary (especially a member of an opposing military force)
▸ noun: a personal enemy
Compact OED:
• noun (pl. enemies) 1 a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something. 2 (the enemy) treated as sing. or pl. a hostile nation or its armed forces in time of war. 3 a thing that damages or opposes something: routine is the enemy of art.
Yahoo Dictionary
One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.
A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
A member or unit of such a force.
A group of foes or hostile forces. See Usage Note at collective noun.
Something destructive or injurious in its effects: “Art hath an enemy called Ignorance” (Ben Jonson).
Encarta Dictionary
- unfriendly opponent: somebody who hates or seeks to harm somebody or something
- military opponent: a person or group, especially a military force, that fights against another in combat or battle
- hostile power: a hostile nation or power
- something harmful or obstructive: something that harms or opposes something else
In a case like this, time is the enemy.
Merriam Webster
1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2 : something harmful or deadly <alcohol was his greatest enemy>
3 a : a military adversary b : a hostile unit or force
Note that not one of them contains your bullshit about how they have to be capable of overthrowing your country to be called an “enemy”. Merriam Webster specifically deals with the question, including in the definition of enemy “one seeking to injure” along with one seeking to “overthrow”.
Not one of them babbles on like you do about how they have to be “worthy” to be an enemy.
Cite?
Hasad meets none of those definitions. He’s just a nutcase.
Does anyone know the straight dope on this idea that Hasan was unable to get out of the military? I know his cousin said he’d done everything he could to leave, but a relative of mine in the Army is absolutely certain that Hasan could have left if he’d wanted to sometime in the 8+ years since the war in Afghanistan began, or even in the 5+ years since the Iraq War began. That sounds more realistic to me than the idea that this “poor” man had no chance to leave the service in more than 8 years. Any military Dopers in the know want to weigh in?
Not that I think it matters that much - it’s a piss poor excuse for murdering 13 people.
Nice try. We were talking about whether al Qaeda was an enemy, not Hasan. In particular, we were discussing your statement that:
You may not be paying attention to what you say, but some of us are.
PS - Still waiting for your cite, I provided mine …
Although you have phrased his position in your own words rather strangely, that was probably close to his position before he completely lost his mind. That would not make him a religious fanatic. As you can see in the post following yours (the quoted portion) the real fanatics are criticizing the Muslims in America for condemning this mass murder.
In other medical schools, psychiatrists must undergo an intense form of psychiatric evaluation and therapy themselves. There is a name for it and I’m sure that it is familiar to many of you. It has slipped my mind at the moment. I’m wondering if that was true for the training that this psychiatrist had in the military.
Al Qaeda’s not an enemy either. A nuisance, maybe, but not an enemy.
Cite for what?
Then he runs into problems getting caught in an enemy uniform, if you want to look at it that way, which gives him a smoke and a blindfold.
Declan
May as well bring this into the discussion, but what happened to that sargeant that rolled a couple of frags into a tent at the beginning of either Iraq or Afganistan, and killed a bunch of fellow troops, I could have sworn he got the death penalty.
Declan
It was not terrorism , absent any further information. He belonged to no known terrorist organization or nation state that promotes terrorism. Terror is a method to achieve a goal, had he walked into one of the schools on base and started killing dependent children, then I would have been more swayed on the terrorist angle.But he did not appear at this time to link his actions with any known manifesto or cause.
Declan
Cite for what? Start with a cite showing that you can read. Then once you’ve established that, go back and read what I wrote. If you can’t figure out what I requested a cite for, come back and let us know. Then I’ll tell you again … but … real … slowly … next … time. Here’s a clue. I discuss it in my next paragraph.
I note that, despite my giving a host of citations for how people actually use and understand the word “enemy”, you have persist in using your peculiar one-man definition, and play dumb when asked for a citation regarding how you are using the word. At least I hope you are playing dumb.
You do understand how citations work? Like, when five different dictionaries say you are wrong, you are likely wrong? Like, when the citations show you are wrong, it gets you bonus points if you admit it, and loses you points if you just ignore it?
Sheesh. Why do I bother?
That soldier did get the death penalty, but the military appeals process takes a long time (not unlike some States with the death penalty); I’d guess at least 10 years minimum before the President would have a chance to sign off on it, and then a couple more from signing to injecting.
But the fact these two happened during wartime might change things (speed things up). Just guessing of course, but maybe because of the extra attention??
Regardless, it normally takes a long time. I bet Bush would have signed off on the Sargeant though. I doubt Obama ever gets the chance with Hasan.
Declan, there is a precise definition of terrorist in the criminal code cited upthread. It does not say anywhere that someone has to be a member of a “terrorist organization or nation state that promotes terrorism” to be a terrorist.
Yes i read that, what I was trying to convey was his target list while tragic , was not something that I would think would spread terror, suspicion regarding all muslims in the US forces yes, but not terror.
Declan
FWIW, I think you schooled him. 
I encourage anyone to come up with their definition of terrorism. That was the original spirit of this thread. ie, is he a terrorist in your view. Countries statutes defining terrorism vary widely, much like the posters in this thread.
To be sure, he can’t be charged with terrorism under US law because it’s not a crime under the UCMJ (which has it’s own crimes) and he’s being tried in a courts-martial which uses the UCMJ for the substantive crimes and court procedures.
So it’s just murder for now. I’m sure there’s lots of things he could be charged with, but not terrorism.
Thanks, Declan. What makes it terror is that he wanted Muslims to get Conscientious Objector status, in order to “decrease adverse events”. Then he gave an example of the kind of “adverse events” he was talking about, by killing 13 people and wounding 32 more … which to me is trying to bend the US Army to his point of view by violence.
Which is terrorism under the statute. However, YMMV.
You also say that it would spread “suspicion regarding all Muslims in the US Forces”, and you are correct. However, you fail to note that this just puts more pressure on the Army to let Muslims be COs … like I said, bending the Army to his thinking by violence.
Do you really think that he did this with the intention of making the army let more Muslims be COs?