411 Politics RoundTable: Thoughts On The Ft. Hood Massacre

Posted by J. Alexander Mitchell on 11.20.2009

The 411 staff gets together to discuss The Ft. Hood Massacre...

Welcome to the 411 Mania Politics Round Table! As per normal, please give your thoughts on both our responses and the questions themselves in the comments section below!

Our Roundtablers are:

Enrique, who has last discussed the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Joe Rivett, who last discussed Sarah Palin / Carrie Prejean and their war with the media

Jason Douglas, who last discussed what place abortion has in the health care debate

Robert Zimmer, who last discussed Sarah Palin and her adventures as a "reality show"

J. D. Dunn, who last discussed how the corruption of the Democratic party equals the corruption in the Republican party

J. Alexander Mitchell, your host.

Here is our topic for today:

This week's questions involve subjects that many would consider, at the very least, sensitive: faith, free speech, and the military. However, the tragedy in Ft. Hood - more importantly, the aftermath of this tragedy - has left many searching for answers about how this sort of attack could occur and what we could have done to prevent it. Where are our lines in the sand on these issues?

(1) It has been noted that, prior to his attack, Major Nidal Malik Hasan advocated the thought that Muslims in the military should have been able to receive a release based on being a "conscientious objector". This is not unheard of as a concept; many invoked faith issues as reason to be conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War. Do you believe that faith would be an appropriate reason to allow someone a release from military service?

Enrique As an atheist, there's very little I find appropriate about faith. At first blush it seems like it would be unfair for a person to join the U.S. military, have the DoD pay for their medical training, only for that person to later claim they're a conscientious objector in order to avoid fulfilling their service obligation. After some googling, I've discovered there's a Supreme Court precedent that repudiates my assessment of faith – their 1971 decision in Gillette v. United States permits conscientious objection on purely religious grounds. I suppose I could understand the concept of conscientious objection if the U.S. military still practiced conscription, as it did in 1971. But given the fact our current armed forces are made up entirely of volunteers, I can't see how the concept of conscientious objection still applies. Hasan joined the Army of his own free will; it's not proper for him to claim conscientious objector status at this point, the Supreme Court notwithstanding. Hopefully the Court will take up this question again at some point.

Joe Rivett I'm not a fan of this. If you think your religion is going to conflict with your service then don't join the military. You pledge to defend the Constitution, not your bible. The first amendment can be a slippery slope. Should a practicing Catholic be able to not fight in Iraq because the pope is against the war? Now, if there is a draft then maybe I would have more sympathy for someone using religion to justify not serving. I've never been in the military but I assume you sign some sort of contract, it should cover religious issues.

Jason Douglas I rarely punt on any issue of consequence, but I really believe the military knows better than I do whether the ability to leave the service for religious reasons would be disruptive. It's not just about the individuals who might walk away, but what it could do to morale. If those near the top discharged my fellow soldiers because they said the coming war is wrong, then I got deployed to fight it, that wouldn't be a good feeling. But not having served, I won't presume to know what impact that may have, which means I can't really weigh the two sides of the argument fairly.

Robert Zimmer If anyone serving in the military comes to a point where s/he cannot reconcile his/her faith with her duties as a servicemember, that person is obligated to discuss the issue with a superior officer and determine the best course of action, which may include conscientious objector status, a non-combat assignment if possible, or a discharge.

J. D. Dunn Given that we have an all-volunteer army now, that should be a moot point. The "conscientious objector" status is generally given to someone who objects to violence on the face of it – across the board – not someone who picks and chooses which countries they want to be violent against. Taking the life of another person is, or should be, a very serious issue, though, and if a person of faith wants to contribute to their country's military while still refusing to take lives, we should make *some* attempts to accommodate that, especially considering recruitment woes.

J. Alexander Mitchell I went back and forth on this one quite a bit... which is part of the reason why I asked the question. On the one hand, we do seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time stopping terror or helping stop "the bad guys" in the Middle East while utterly and totally ignoring worse atrocities in places like Darfur, Rwanada, etc.. On the other hand, the Middle East has oil. On a third hand, the guys that actually attacked us are the ones we are going after at the moment. I realized I have stopped being human once I hit that third hand, so I stopped questioning at that point. I can definitely see someone having the perception that we were at war with Islam based on the countries we've dealt with... but I also think that person would be wrong. What made me decide my answer was contrasting the two scenarios I mentioned in the sentence; the first is someone that volunteered for the military, while the second was a draft scenario. As such, after some thought, I have to say "You know what you signed up for" and say "no".

(2a) It has been reported that Army officials had concerns about Major Hasan's mental state, worrying that, at worst case, he was "psychotic". In addition, some investigation went into possible attempts by Major Hasan to contact Al Qaeda. Is it realistic to believe that the military should have been able to catch and neutralize the threat of Major Hasan ahead of time?

Enrique In retrospect, it's easy to say the FBI should have arrested Hasan for his e-mail contacts with extremists. However, at this point I'm not clear on what these e-mails contained. All we know is anonymous sources say Hasan was e-mailing some shady characters. Until new evidence comes to light about the contents of these e-mails, I don't know what federal investigators were supposed to have done. E-mailing nasty people isn't a crime as far as I know. Nation of Islam poobah Louis Farrakhan is an extremist who has advocated violence, but I don't think the feds should arrest people for e-mailing him. Based on what we know now, there would have been serious First Amendment implications in preemptively arresting Hasan. I think in this case, we might have to chalk it up to bad things happening to good people – not all tragedies can be prevented.

Joe Rivett I'm sure army officials have lots of concerns but someone doesn't just wake up and become psychotic. If he was psychotic, he would have never have made it far as he did in life. He was angry. As far as attempts, either he did or didn't contact Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, I'm sure there had to be a soldier that overheard a frustrated officer and could have told somebody. If I'm at work and someone is complaining all the time, eventually I'm going to tell my boss.

Jason Douglas I try to temper judgment that relies on 20/20 hindsight, but the phrase "this guy was on our radar for months" is very troubling. At an absolute minimum, his access to weapons should have been cut off while they decided what to do about him. It's very clear that he could have been neutralized before he went off. The military has its own set of laws. If I didn't show up at the office today and didn't call, they couldn't arrest me for it. In the military it's very different. I find it really hard to believe that because Hasan is a Muslim he was untouchable. It sounds more like something those who begrudge the Muslim faith want to be true so they can howl about it.

Robert Zimmer It is realistic to believe that Major Hasan's killing spree could both have been anticipated and prevented -- red flags were everywhere and it's astonishing to me that nobody took proactive steps to avert this tragedy. If you have an officer -- and a psychiatrist no less -- openly questioning U.S. military efforts as as indiscriminate war on Islam, and initiating communications with religious figures with known terrorist ties, and you do nothing about it, the fault is as much yours as it is Hasan's. Blood is as much on Hasan's superior officers' hands as it is on his.

J. D. Dunn Hasan's mental state is in dispute. Some say they had concerns he was psychotic, others say he was just "quirky," so it's difficult to say they should act on that basis alone. As for the emails, it would depend on what he said in them. According to at least one source, he wasn't contacting Al-Qaeda so much as seeking spiritual guidance from a Muslim cleric who happened to be associated with Al-Qaeda. The nature of the emails and what Hasan said in them is of vital importance to answering the question of whether this was preventable or not, and until we know what the emails said, I can't say.

J. Alexander Mitchell I think there are too many different areas that noticed different parts but were too busy doing their real jobs to talk to each other. Everyone saw signs, but were there enough to warrant anything beyond monitoring him? "He's on our radar" is significantly different from "We're kicking him out". It's unfortunate that this guy fell through the cracks... but I also think that it is entirely within the realm of possibility that everyone did their jobs and this guy simply wasn't noticed.

(2b) There has been an argument that some free speech laws impeded the investigation of Major Hasan prior to the attacks. Should we reconsider some of these laws in light of the tragedy?

Enrique We should never let politicians use a tragedy as an excuse to infringe on our rights. We frequently have in the past (i.e., the PATRIOT Act) and the preponderance of evidence to date indicates well-meaning public officials should not be given additional excuses to abuse their power in the name of the common good, public safety, or protecting our children. It may be comforting to think the mass murders at Fort Hood or Virginia Tech (which no one called a "terrorist" act, oddly) could have been prevented, because it's difficult to acknowledge we simply can't control the trajectory of every diligent psychopath. I remain skeptical arresting a person for sending suspicious e-mails is a prudent law enforcement strategy. Maybe rolling back civil liberties would have stopped Hasan, but maybe it wouldn't have. Since we can't know, it's better to err on the side of preserving our rights.

Joe Rivett The laws that are in place are fine. The Constitution is bendable when it comes to wars and the war on terror. In addition, didn't Congress give the Executive Branch the right to do whatever it took to fight Al-Qaeda in 2001?

Jason Douglas First we have to take something into account: long before all the facts come in on a tragedy like this, some people use such an event to advance their own political agenda. Some immediately tried to use it to justify gun control (and I mean before the bodies were even cold). Some would love to erode the first amendment and give the government more control, usually the same people who seek to control the government. We already make exceptions to free speech rights, such as threats of violence. We don't need to change part of our legal system over a single event which we likely won't know the entire truth about for some time.

Robert Zimmer Free speech should never, ever be abrogated for any reason except to avert immediate harm to a person or persons (the 'yelling "fire" in a crowded theater' test). Curtailing Hasan's First Amendment rights would not have stopped the massacre.

J. D. Dunn Call me naïve, but I don't think we should change our core values over what "an unnamed investigator" claims, especially when the other investigators say "lack of evidence." The article in question also shows why Fox 'News' is a misnomer. When someone disagrees with or outright refutes Catherine Herridge's narrative, they "are reluctant to say" that it was political correctness that prevented an investigation. See, the other investigators and army officials know that Bernie Goldberg, Monica Crowley and some satirical blogger (seriously, the article quotes these three as evidence) are telling the truth, but when they disagree with their assessment it's because "they're reluctant to say." For this, we would seriously consider changing our values?

J. Alexander Mitchell It is unfortunate that certain organizations did not want to investigate / censure Major Hasan for fear of appearing racist. I would hope that they see that this is the wrong path. Whereas, yes, I'm sure that we need further understanding of the cultural differences between the Islamic minority in the military and the majority, I see no reason to be afraid of, functionally, coming across as not politically-correct enough.

(3) Senator Joseph Liebermann has led the charge of a Senate investigation into the attacks. In doing so, he cited that Major Hasan could be considered an "Islamic extremist" and, as such, the tragedy would be considered an act of terrorism. Should this be considered an act of terrorism?

Enrique As I said above, no one considered for a moment calling the Virginia Tech shootings a terrorist act, despite the much higher body count. From my irreligious perspective, using the word "terrorism" for acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims is a signifier of Christian chauvinism, a way to appeal to Americans' religious sensibilities (explicit or repressed), and to designate all Muslims as "other." I have no interest in playing the my-religion-is-better-than-yours game. Thought experiment: Is Scott Roeder, the accused murderer of Kansas abortionist George Tiller, a terrorist? I would suspect many people eager to label Hasan a terrorist would demure in the case of Roeder. It's really just hair splitting. The terms "massacre" and "mass murder" have served us well in the past, there's no reason to discard them now. Well, no sensible reason.

Joe Rivett Possibly. Terrorism is killing people and spreading fear in order to pressure for political change. I have no problem with Lieberman's call for an investigation. If it is true that he yelled "God is Great" then it sounds like a terrorist to me. If not a terrorist than an Islamic nutjob.

Jason Douglas I'm wary of the term "terrorism" being applied so freely, partly for political grandstanding and partly as an excuse to circumvent proper legal proceedings. At its core, terrorism is the threat and use of deadly force to coerce government policy. Were his actions the result of his recommendations on conscientious objectors not being implemented? We don't know. Not possessing the facts should deter people from drawing conclusions on this matter, but it rarely does. Motive is the single most crucial component to determine whether this was a terrorist act, and until the investigation is complete, people need to take a breath and withhold judgment on this question. For the time being, I'm more concerned about the trend of the U.S. Senate directly involving itself in investigations. Senators should focus on legislating, not exploiting a tragedy to boost their public image. It's no coincidence that Liebermann, whose image has taken a beating lately, is leading this charge.

Robert Zimmer When it comes to national defense, Joe Lieberman has entered an alternate reality populated by discredited figures like Dick Cheney, who are eager to label everything an act of terror for political purposes. Hasan is a U.S. citizen who committed murder and he should be tried accordingly. The 'terrorism' bogeyman is a distraction, as it always has been.

J. D. Dunn Either words mean something, or they don't. Terrorism is violence committed with a specific purpose of effecting political change. The 1993 and 2001 WTC attacks were committed to protest the West's perceived encroachment into the Muslim world after the first Gulf War. The Oklahoma City bombings were committed by terrorists protesting federal government power (specifically, the ATF and IRS). But Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris had no political agenda. They were just a couple of losers who snapped and shot up their school. You *could* say that they had a political agenda in regards to how people are treated in high school, but to stretch that far, you could also say that a liquor store robber is a socialist terrorist who believes in the redistribution of wealth (or a capitalist terrorist who is pulling himself up by his own bootstraps). I go back to the opening: either words mean something, or they don't. What about, say, Son of Sam who shot several people over a period of weeks because a demon-infested dog told him to? Is he a terrorist? Very few people would say so. They'd say he's a nut who snapped (Although, if he convinced enough others that the dog actually did talk, it would be a religion. Why not? The Egyptians worshipped cats.) So it's too soon to call this terrorism because we don't know *why* he did what he did. We know background. Until we can form a definitive picture of the last few days of his life, we won't know if this was the act of a stressed-out loner, a psychotically ill man, or a Muslim terrorist. To jump to conclusions and then work backwards to find evidence for that conclusion is irresponsible… at best.

J. Alexander Mitchell Well, if we start labeling mass murderers that are Baptist as "Christian Extremists" I may agree with him. However, one would consider the "Christian Extremist" label as absurd, just like the "Islamic Extremist" label is absurd for Major Hasan. He's an independent nutjob by all reports, and he should be tried accordingly.

What do you think?