Comments Posted By Terrible Terry
Displaying 11 To 16 Of 16 Comments
MORE THAN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS OR VICTIMHOOD AT WORK IN FORT HOOD ATTACK
manning: A simpler explanation of Maj. Hasan's tension is what so many families went through during the Civil War, when brother fought against brother. From the accounts I've read, it was very difficult, regardless of which side you thought to be right. I'm not in any way justifying what Hasan did, but it's not impossible to imagine that kind of tension outside the context of Islam.
You speak as if you're an authority on Islam - but what you say is contracted by numerous others (with established credentials on the subject). So, if you're right, why do so many other Islam experts disagree with you (in your allegations that all Muslims support jihadists)? And, aren't you jumping the gun a bit to (apparently) assume that this is what motivated Hasan to kill? I mean, isn't it at least plausible that he simply went postal (as have quite a few others in recent times, it seems)?
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 16:41
jackson 1234: I'm not aware of any released information about direct threats made by Hasan against his fellow soldiers. To the contrary, by most if not all accounts, he was a very quiet and polite person. Where are you getting your information?
As to contacts with radical clerics, Hasan was apparently engaged in Islamic studies within the military structure, so that kind of contact would seem not to be unreasonable, would it?
But back to my original question: Do you think that any contact by any person with a Muslim cleric should trigger a criminal investigation? If so, how would you establish probable cause in such a case? Who should decide which such clerics were OK and which were too "radical?" Aren't you advocating some kind of thought police power - if a person thinks and speaks certain thoughts, they come under official surveillance?
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 16:35
Jackson 1234: Exactly what is the "Islamist threat" that's being ignored? Precisely what would you propose to do to deal with it?
Richard bottoms: Exactly what "rules of common sense" do you think should be added to our laws (in a way that's constitutional, of course)? And, as far as "good investigative practices", could you share with us what you think should have triggered a criminal investigation of Hasan (such that such practices could have been followed)?
Obamathered: Exactly what do think the "chain of command" should have done in Hasan's case, and what rule(s) would you propose be followed in the future that will ensure no repeat of the Hasan shooting? Should his purchase of a so-called "cop-killer" weapon have been reported to the military?
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 16:07
To me, being "politically correct" is treating others with a false kind of deference, because of a fear of being criticized if you spoke candidly. IOW, it's kind of cowardly behavior.
Since when was "political correctness" equal to protecting our constitutional rights?
There might well be a minority among a minority (like Muslims, Japanese, Blacks, Hispanics, etc.) that are potential troublemakers. Does that justify curbing or even suspending the rights of the entire minority? If so, I'd love to hear some credible rationale for that, preferably in sufficient detail to assure that the same excuses couldn't be applied to any other group that fell out of favor.
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 13:55
Just a further thought:
The problem is the difference between collecting foreign intelligence, and conducting a criminal investigation. We certainly don't want our government to be free to launch fishing expeditions whenever they get an urge to do so. The criminal standard (solid evidence that the subject has committed or is about to commit a crime) would probably not have permitted surveillance of Hasan, given what was known (prior to the shooting). In contrast, foreign intelligence can be collected with a much lower standard (some evidence that the subject is affiliated with a foreign power), and that standard might have been met in Hasan's case.
But freely sharing foreign intelligence information with law enforcement is (and must be) illegal, because doing so effectively bypasses the criminal investigation (Constitutional) standard. Our system wasn't set up to be efficient at catching criminals, but to be robust at protecting the basic rights of all of us.
Simpletons rant about doing this or that to "the bad guys" but they always breeze over the hard challenges of objectively figuring out just who is a "bad guy" in the first place. With no rules (inconvenient at times for law enforcement, to be sure), anyone might decide that any one of us are a "bad guy" and we'd have no recourse. Just like the dopes that argue for tough measures against obscenity, using logic like "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 11:34
I agree with all your thoughts except the last one, that we MUST find a way to prevent more Hasans without causing problems for others. Your implication is that this is doable. It's entirely possible, however, that (for the reasons you discuss), it's not possible to simultaneously be selective and also non-discriminatory. Maybe it's just an ambiguity (and risk) we have to take in order to remain a free society.
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 11:00
