One of the articles. yes. I just say we have to wait. Hell, it might require until the trial. But we can not factually declare his motive at this point. Nor can we say with certainty what occurred.
I agree completely, we don’t know (and may never know) his motive.
However, we do have a good idea of his ideology … radical jihadi. From the UK Telegraph:
Says he is off “to do good work for God” before strapping on a gun in a no-gun zone and killing a bunch of unbelievers … says he wants to cut of the heads of infidels and pour boiling oil down their throats … says he is “Muslim first and American second” … says “Allahu Akbar” before starting killing infidels … is in touch with a number of radical jihadi organizations … his Islamic spiritual mentor congratulates Hasan on his actions … are we seeing a pattern here?
Dio upthread said that the Right is trying to exaggerate the “terrorist” aspect to bust Obama for this. I’ve looked around the web, and he’s right. But that’s just dumb. No way Obama is to blame in this one, no President could stop a lone gunman.
Unfortunately, the Left seems determined to minimize the whole thing because, like the Right, they also think it does reflect on Obama, so they play the “he’s just a garden variety nutjob” card.
Me, I don’t think it says anything about Obama either way, I think anyone who claims it does is a garden variety nutjob … and I also think that Occam’s Razor strongly suggests that Hasan is an Islamic terrorist.
This case might not fit neatly into one of our pre-determined boxes. He might well have been a metnally unstable Muslim-American in the military with issues about his career being in trouble. Whether or not he shouted Allahu Akbar doesn’t add a whole lot to the discussion, since that can be used in so many contexts that it’s almost meaningless in and of itself.
At this point, I have to go with “not enough information to say either way”. However, saying that Islam had nothing to do with his actions is simply not recognizing reality. Problem is, too many people equate “Muslim killer” with “terrorist”. This could easily be a classic case of workplace rage, even if Islam was at the center of the motivation. In my mind, workplace rage is more about revenge than anything else.
As for Christian fundamentalists shooting abortion doctors, I’d have to say that is almost certainly terrorism. Unless they had a singular beef with that one abortion doctor, they are clearly trying to strike fear in abortion doctors across the board.
If he did it to try to achieve some sort of political goal, then I guess I’d say he’s a terrorist. Otherwise I’d probably just call him a “spree killer”. I don’t think one is any better than the other, though.
But that’s just it - upon whom exactly was Hasan trying to exact revenge? And for what? The “going postal”/revenge motive just doesn’t seem to fit all the facts that are available so far. There have been reports 1) from Hasan’s family that he told them he was occasionally harassed for being a Muslim, 2) that he wanted Muslims in the military to have the option of becoming automatic conscientious objectors, and 3) that he was very much opposed to his deployment orders to Afghanistan. If anything, given these facts, it would have made more sense for him to have injured himself in some way so as to prevent him from being deployed. Driving up to a random grouping of people and soldiers with plenty of extra ammunition (after giving away many of his possessions and some copies of Qurans earlier in the day to his neighbors) doesn’t add up as a revenge/postal massacre.
I would be curious to check out the legislators and commentators who are insisting that the Ft. Hood murders be labeled as “terrorism” and see how they feel about hate crime legislation.
The usual line against hate crime legislation is unnecessary because a crime is a crime, and we shouldn’t prosecute someone based on what’s in his head. Someone who is consistent about that should also find it unnecessary to label these crimes as “terrorism”.
Personally, I think Hasan is most likely mentally ill, and as such his motives really can’t be taken seriously. If I went out and shot a bunch of redheads because I wanted redheads to stop using gamma rays to read my thoughts, would that be a terrorist act against redheads? No; it would be a killing spree by a crazy man. Hasan’s delusions just happen to be based in jihadist rhetoric.
That’s not to say that mentally ill people can’t commit terrorist acts, particularly when they’ve been planned by someone else who is taking advantage of that illness. But by and large, I’d save the label of “terrorism” for those with a reasonably firm grip on reality, and my impression is that Hasan doesn’t really have that grip.
(And when I say he’s probably mentally ill, I don’t think he should get off easy. He should be locked up for the rest of his life, IMO. Even if he can be treated you can’t take the chance that he’ll do something like that again.)
A Muslim terroristic act, no doubt about it.
Another US definition of terrorism. Not a crime, but has been used for reporting purposes since 1983 of “terrorism” domestic and abroad; therefore, the Ft. Hood shooting incident could be reported as a terrorist incident, assuming it was “politically motivated” (whatever that means).
Navy Link (cut n pasted below)
*"No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:
The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
…
(1) For purposes of this definition, the term “noncombatant” is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following U.S. military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, U.S. defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the La Belle disco bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty U.S. Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against U.S. bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere."*
Basically it sounds like there’s no way to really exclude anybody from the definition, because it’s defined in whatever self-serving and arbitrary manner that the government (or anyone else) wants to define it. It’s a word that basically has no definition but a demagogic one.
Basically. It appears to be undefinable, legally speaking. The CIA influences Gov’t policy through violence. They’re terrorists. The Columbine kids intimidated a civilian population by a criminal act. They’re terrorists.
Being a murderer is so 20th century. It’s just not enough anymore.
Well, basically, no. You are both making the “everything is relative so we can’t make any distinctions or definitions” argument.
Since terrorism is in fact very clearly defined, legally speaking, we can hardly say it is undefinable, legally speaking.
As someone pointed out above, the definition of terrorism is given in US law, specifically 18 USC 2331. The kind we are discussing is “domestic terrorism”, that is, terrorism occurring within the US.
AFAIK, the Columbine kids were not looking to influence anyone, they were looking for revenge on the kids that had taunted them. Not terrorism.
CIA violence might or might not be terrorism, depending on where, when, and how. If they secretly whack a drug dealer in Ciudad Juarez, no. No intimidation, no coercion. If they whack the President of Chile, definitely. Assassination affecting the conduct of a government. But they’re not covered by our discussion of domestic terrorism … at least I hope not …
In any case, I don’t buy your “I am you, as you are me, as you are he, as we are all together” Beatles argument for saying that terrorism is whatever we say it is and any violence may or may not be terrorism. Some is, some isn’t, and the law is pretty clear on the difference.
Yes. That’s how the US defines the crime of terrorism, I’m merely saying every country defines it differently (even the US uses two different defintions as I pointed out earlier). I’m suggesting it’s hard to define without being over-broad or under-inclusive.
Under US law, the Columbine kids would be terrorists:
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal law (murder)
(B) appear to be intended to intimidate a civilian population (appears they intended to intimidate high school students)
(C) occur primarily within the United States. (Colorado)
The CIA would too; whenever that organization tries to influence Government policy through violence.
I don’t mind that the Ft. Hood shooter is being called a terrorist for the reasons being suggested (it’s not that big of a stretch anyways), my only problem is the label terrorist is not applied according the legal defintion, but to certain select groups of people. The US law is overbroad and people who we don’t think of as “terrorists” definetly violate the law (or it’s no more of a stretch than Major Hasan).
Please flesh out your defense of B. I don’t see future intimidation of bullies being relevant. Once the Columbine shooters were killed or jailed ,the threat was gone. I see it an an angry revenge shooting.
To me, your interpretation of the law is way over-broad.
The issue is not whether the act is intimidating. Any violence is intimidating. It is whether the intimidation is a deliberate attempt to influence public policy. It is not whether the act scares people. It is whether the act is deliberately designed to scare them into taking some particular action that you desire.
I don’t think Columbine fits that definition. Like all law, there are gray areas, but not much violence inside the US appears to me to be designed to frighten people into submission, to scare folks into changing policy or into doing/not doing something in the future. Abortion murders and the McVeigh bombing, yes. They have/had a definite policy goal. Folks going postal, whether at Columbine or in the Post Office, no. Mafia intimidation of witnesses, yes. John Wayne Gacy, no.
Like all gradations, of course, the further from the center, the clearer the issue becomes. And because it involves motive rather than actions, it is never entirely clear. Hasan could come out and say “I wanted to infuence army policy to spare future Muslims who found themselves in my position”, or he could say “I was angry at the color khaki so I decided to kill as many people wearing khaki as I could”. This being the US, where taking responsibility for one’s actions is a lost art, he’ll probably say “I really don’t remember, I saw everything in funny colors and thought I was back on the farm killing chickens, it was just a heartfelt plea for help,” whether that is true or not.
This was absolutely in the “postal” category.
I want to ask you about one quick point. How are you interpreting “appear intended to intimidate a civilian population” to require an influence of public policy?
I’ve admittedly only read the statute, if there’s caselaw or whatever that adds the influence public policy requirement let me know. It very well could.
Although they don’t address the question of statutory interpretation or caselaw, recent memos from the Department of Homeland Security regarding domestic terrorism threats due to right wing (warning: PDF) and left wing (warning: PDF) extremists may give some insight regarding current federal policy on domestic terrorism. I’m hedging with “may” there because I’ve only skimmed them so far (and I won’t be able to give them a closer read until later tonight) but they seem to be pertinent.
The point is not the intimidation. If someone is murdered in a neighborhood, people in the area may be intimidated from going out on the street. But that doesn’t make it terrorism.
The point is to intimidate a group into doing something. Typically, although as you point out not exclusively, this is to intimidate people into changing some policy with public implications.
You’re wrong. The point is not at all necessarily about changing public policy, sometimes the point IS intimidation – and often to stop people from doing things. For example, killing doctors who perform abortions. That’s not about changing abortion law, it’s about making doctors afraid to perform them.
I attended a conference on terrorism back in the late 80s. Though the subject was international rather than domestic terrorism, their major goal was to define it. And they failed, in large part because attendees from the State Department (which funded it) insisted that the definition included certain acts and excluded others.
The government reps insisted that the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut was terrorism, becuase there were indeed a few civilians killed in and around the building. The academics who atended were virtually unanimous that it was not terrorism – it was a pretty straightforward military strike at a military target with an unconventional weapon. The government folks also insisted that the airstrike on Libya that struck Qadaffi’s home and killed his daughter, as well as hit various strickly military targets, was not terrorism. In this attack as well, numerous civilians in the vicinity of the attacks were killed.
The other area of controversy involved the Contras in Nicaragua. Their attacks against civilian infrastructure were not terrorism, according to the State Department.
The general sense of people was that the main differences between all these acts was who was setting off the bombs, or in the case of the Contras, paying for them. The US goverment, though it wouldn’t explicitly say so, had a rather Nixonian view of terrorism. “If we do it, it isn’t terrorism.”
I would add to all this that there was a pretty strong consensus that terrorists strike at civilian targets, and if the strike is aimed at a military target, it is more and act of war, not terrorism.
Fair enough. I actually like that definition because it’s more restrictive.
I’m only pointing out that under the definition in 18 USC 2331, the Columbine kids could be argued to be terrorists.