http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf
I’m only surprised that the Senate panel had the audacity to say what’s been obvious for a long time.
Major Hasan was a dangerous lunatic, and everybody around him knew it. Nobody took action, because it would make any whistle blower look like an “Islamophobe.”
It’s unfortunate but I think it comes from a good place. A lot of news articles and first hand accounts have come out from Muslim soldiers talking about how hard it has been to serve in the military since 9/11. I think the DoD and individual commanders were cognizant of this and thus are probably far more lenient with strange and erratic behavior from Muslim soldiers because of this atmosphere (maybe not so much now…)
What it really comes down to is the military needs to treat its personnel based on how they act. If someone says insane things, is known to be in communication with terrorists, and is considered a “ticking time bomb” by military instructors that person needs to be looked into heavily and not in the manner that was done here, where it was swept under a rug. It doesn’t matter if that person’s last name is Hasan or Henderson, and it doesn’t matter whether they pray facing Mecca or are atheists. Someone acts unstable and crazy, they need to be evaluated with the strictest scrutiny.
Even some of the lowest ranking members of the military are entrusted with extremely important duties, great responsibilities, and many opportunities to cause large amounts of havoc. Even after all that, even recruits quickly get into contact with very expensive hardware that you don’t want a crazy, unstable person messing with.
The military isn’t “just any other employer” and they can’t behave like one.
What’s the debate here?
Wait till Der Trihs comes. I expect him to say something like the Senate report is biased and unreliable or whatnot.
I expect him to say that since Hasan was religious, he was insane, therefore nobody with any religion is qualified to be in the military because having a religion makes you crazy and we can’t have crazy people in the military.
Ooo … can I play?
I expect him to say that the U.S. military is already made up of crazy fundamentalist killers like Hasan. Our only mistake is not judging them all by the same standard.
I expect him to say that as well, blaming the liberal media. Oh wait, that’s you.
I’m with RNATB. I’m sure there is a debate topic to be had in this story, but I’m curious what the OP had in mind to discuss.
I expect someone to say that ultimately it is the fault of the Beatles.
… and with that, we draw the curtain on this tangent about Der Trihs. Back to the topic at hand, please.
This is not what the report says. It’s not even close.
There was more than enough evidence Hasan was communicating with a Anwar al-Awlaki, who supports and encourages terrorism, and that he was losing his grip. He was fixating in his religious convictions in all sorts of inappropriate ways, and if communicating with a guy suspected of strong connections to violent extremism isn’t enough to get you noticed, disciplined, and thrown out of the Army, I am not sure what is. All of that should have happened. He should not have slipped through the cracks. Plenty of people have already said this.
The report says: the FBI and Defense Department knew who he was communicating with and about his behavior, and that that behavior was grounds to dismiss him under existing military policy. However it says they did not dismiss him and did not stop him because: the FBI and DOD didn’t share their information, an FBI field office did not identify some of his communications with al-Awlaki and did not tell the Army, the failure of two FBI field offices to work together (sound familiar?), because the FBI focused on the wrong issue - whether his actions counted as terrorism instead of whether he was becoming a radical - and because the Department of Defense hasn’t done enough to train military members on how to recognize radical Islam and doesn’t address it specifically as an issue the way it does with, say, white supremacy.
I do see this on page 33:
People who want this to be a political correctness issue are going to interpret the report to fit into their preconceived notions. No surprise there. That’s usually how it goes with PC debates anyway: the “un-PC” side argues ‘you know I’m right, you just won’t admit it.’ Unfortunately it sounds like that’s not what happened here, and even if you believe that’s what happened, that isn’t what the report concludes. People realized Hasan was screwed up, but not everybody realized how bad it was. Others did not want to make waves and engaged in typical bureaucratic behavior like giving positive evaluations to someone who was doing a bad job and failing to realize what was happening in front of them. And the FBI didn’t pull together all the information it should have.
The report also says this on page 50:
You could argue the senators are accusing the Defense Department of being PC here, but they’re not saying PC denial allowed the attack to happen. They’re saying the military’s response to the shootings should include “reform[ing] religious discrimination and other equal opportunity policies to distinguish violent Islamist extremism from legitimate, protected religious observance of Islam so that commanders will not be reluctant to deal with displays of violent Islamist extremism among servicemembers when radicalization occurs.”
Well I think it’s Yoko Ono’s fault.
Perhaps someone will come and say that there is no such thing as PC.
According to this article by NPR 40% of active duty military in the US identify as evangelical christians. I’m sure of that 40% that a healthy number of them read, watch, or listen to some sort of evangelical material that espouses what many of us non evangelicals would consider tending towards violent extremism, and despite the military’s wishes otherwise most of them enage in evangilism while on duty, which could be considered fixating on your religious convictions in an inappropriate way. I’m in no way excusing Hasan, I’m just pointing out that if you start tossing religious nutters out of the service you’ll quickly cease to have much of a service left.
There is no such thing as “political correctness” and never has been.
Um… there are other quotes which make the case you dismiss a bit stronger:
That sounds like editorializing, not any kind of evidence based conclusion.
By the way, why is it that nobody ever characterizes abortion bombers or IRA terrorists as "Christian extermists?’
It would be really nice if you would have expanded on this rather than just leaving us with a flat statement with no support behind it.
Perhaps being somewhat insane is an asset when treating the somewhat insane. Army logic and such.
The IRA isn’t really about Christianity, but I not only think of abortion bombers as extremists but as terrorists and think that lots of churches in the US should be placed on the SPLC’s list of hate groups for their treatment of gay youth and women.
When you say, “Sounds like…” do you mean that after you read the report in its entirety, you believe it failed to provide sufficient evidence for those assertions?
Or do you mean that based on the tone of the quote I provided, it was not an evidence-based conclusion?