Did a Culture of PC cost lives at Fort Hood?

In an effort to protect Muslims in uniform who are loyal Americans, The Secretary of the Army and other federal officials in and outside the Pentagon a few days ago cautioned the public against jumping to premature conclusions that the mass murder at Fort Hood was an act of terror directly tied to Islamic radicals.  But as more is learned about the shooter, the only real debate becomes what is "premature" and how "directly?"  The fact of so many people being killed at one time and in one place is ispo facto an example of terror. 

 While no one can read the mind of the shooter, it is hardly unfair to consider his other words and deeds in the last few years as being relevant and a strong, but not conclusive, indicator of motive.  Sure it is possible that Hasan could have had some other motive, but the terror motive should be examined too.  The court of public opinion does not have the same rules of evidence as a court of law. It is right to avoid accusing people only because of their religion, but at least some evidence is now mounting that political correctness and a fear of being accused of identifying suspects only because of religion, may have helped to contribute to the loss of 13 lives at Fort Hood. 

NPR reports today that the FBI knew that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had communicated with a radical imam and attended a radical mosque in Falls Church, Virginia nearly a year before the attack but the FBI determined the Army psychiatrist was no threat, officials said.  How they made that determination should be explained.

The report comes as Fort Hood prepared to hold a memorial service today honoring the 13 people who died and the 29 wounded during Thursday's shooting rampage at the Texas base.  The larger question is are security officials being prevented from doing their jobs because they have been told not to follow up on evidence of radical Muslim ties for fear their superiors would criticize them for an anti-Muslim bias?

No one wants to see an anti-Mulsim bias become pervasive because there are many Muslims who live in Detroit and other areas who are very loyal to America.  But we do want ANY evidence of ties to Islamic terror cells to be fully checked out.  That job does not mean there is an anti-Muslim bias, but security officials are paid to have an anti-terrorist bias and they must be allowed to follow all leads.  Within hours of the news of the shooting at Fort Hood, several cable news channels were pushing a story line about the stress of deployment as an explanation for what might have happened.  They interviewed experts on stress before they even knew who the shooter was and many reporters were careful to dismiss out of hand event the possibility of Islamic terror.  Why?  For the same reason that security officials were hampered.  It is not easy to follow a story if several obvious avenues of investigation are arbitrarily shut off because the "angle" is not PC.  Investigators in journalism or law enforcement must be allowed to follow all their leads whereever they go.  Until that approach is set and investigators can overcome the fear of PC, Fort Hood could happen again. President Obama will attend the memorial today as he should.  He could not travel to Berlin this week for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall but did appear by TV message and that also was the right thing to do.  

Comments

[Democracy In Action]

Mark Rhoads is so afraid me calling out his half-baked, pseudo-intellectual nonsense about President Obama and embarrassing him that he's closed off comments to his newest paranoid Marxist rant. See http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/11/barack-obamas-left-wing-superstitions.html

So tell me Mr. Rhoads; how is the President a radical? And you still haven't answered my other question; what does freedom mean to you?

Mark really wants to scare you into thinking President Obama is some kind of evil marxist boogeyman whose true radical motives are to enslave America in a Soviet style planned economy. How crazy is that? Pernicious nonsense.

His ideas are radical? What's so radical about making sure that every American has some access to the health care system? That you don't have to go bankrupt or die just because you aren't rich.

No country can be strong whose people are sick or spending their time jumping through hoops to find adequate medical coverage, if they can get it all because of a pre-existing condition. This is a matter of national security. Heck, Harry Truman(that damnned Commie!) was trying to enact a universal health care system in the 1940's! Radical guy that Truman.

"The irony of such radicals is that they always thought of themselves as on the cutting edge of the future, when in truth their ideas would turn back the clock to the middle ages when many people worked as serfs whose labor belonged not to themsevles but to their feudal lords who ruled them." Mark Rhoads

Why in God's name do we get our health care from our employers (if they are feeling generous enough to give it to us; mine doesn't). Because the GOVERNMENT gives them tax breaks to do it! Why else would they give you medical?

Now when I go out and buy my own health insurance I get NO tax break. None. It's all after tax dollars. So the government is helping the companies make you "as serfs whose labor belonged not to themsevles but to their feudal lords who ruled them." I.e. your corporate masters. Why should a corporation get a tax break for an employee benefit?

Ask a Brit or a Canadian if they feel like, "serfs whose labor belonged not to themsevles but to their feudal lords who ruled them." When I was overseas I asked Canadians, Brits and a few Germans about how they felt about their health care system. I never heard them complain like Americans do. Actually, they can't understand why we labor under such an aniqueted, messy, health care system.

Honestly, they think we are backwards. Go ask one. Try an experiment, go to a random chat room somewhere on the web and ask a Canadian if they get good health care. You'd be surprized.

So Mr. Rhoads never actually states how President Obama is a "radical" he just paints him with that brush to scare you. Just like Stalin knew, if you repeat the same lie enough people start to believe it. I assumed that universal health care would have been on Mr. Rhoads short list of radical ideas.

BTW, those scary Fabians? They perposed radical ideas in the early part of the last century like..., prepare yourselves, a minimum wage. They basically laid the groundwork for the Labour Party, now in power in Britian. George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells were Fabians. Scary guys.

[John Powers]

H.G. Wells proposed bombing the Vatican at the end of WW2 as a means of punishing Catholics for not being sufficiently anti-Fascist for his liking.

He was generally regarded as insane by that time.

JBP

[Pat Hickey]

Mark it sure does appear to be the case that PC trumps lives in our Brave New World.

I think people are beginning to wake up and smell the Bull$hit that perfumes too much that passes for thought these days, thanks to genuine people of thought like you and John Powers.

[Democracy In Action]

"The fact of so many people being killed at one time and in one place is ispo facto an example of terror."

Just curious Mark but when a Predator missile destroys a house where a terrorist is hiding with his family and we kill 15 people, all but one innocent, is that an act of terror?

By your definition America engages in terrorism.

[Democracy In Action]

Can't find anything about bombing the Vatican or punishing Catholics but he didn't like the Pope.

These do not sound like the words of an insane man:

“I cut the following paragraph from The Times of October 27th, 1942. “The air raids on Italy have created the greatest satisfaction in Malta, which has suffered so much at Axis hands. At least the Italians now realize what being bombed means and the nature of the suffering they have so callously inflicted on little Malta since June 12th, 1940, when they showered their first bombs on what was then an almost defenseless island. As that bombing was intensified, especially since the Italians asked Germany’s help in their vain attempt to reduce Malta, the people’s reaction became violent and expressed itself in two words ‘Bomb Rome,’ which were written prominently on walls in every locality.

On June 1st, 1942, the enemy bombed Canterbury and as near as possible got the Archbishop of Canterbury. But what is a mere Protestant Archbishop against His Holiness the Pope? In March 1943 Rome was still unbombed. Now consider the following facts: We are at war with the Kingdom of Italy, which made a particularly cruel and stupid attack upon our allies Greece and France; which is the homeland of Fascism; and whose “Duce” Mussolini begged particularly for the privilege of assisting in the bombing of London.

Not only is Rome the source and centre of Fascism, but it has been the seat of a Pope, who, as we shall show, has been an open ally of the Nazi-Fascist-Shinto Axis since his enthronement. He has never raised his voice against that Axis, he has never denounced the abominable aggression, murder and cruelties they have inflicted upon mankind, and the pleas he is now making for peace and forgiveness are manifestly designed to assist the escape of these criminals, so that they may presently launch a fresh assault upon all that is decent in humanity. The Papacy is admittedly in communication with the Japanese, and maintains in the Vatican an active Japanese observation post. No other capital has been spared the brunt of this war. Why do we not bomb Rome?”
Crux Ansata: An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church
By H. G. Wells pg. 152-153

[PeteSpeer]

The FBI's data appears to have been collected through communications intercepts (probably telephone taps, perhaps internet worms. This Domestic penetration ia the most sensitive of all COMINT Operations and had been in the purview of NSA. The intercepts with the Imam overseas would have been under the auspices of NSA.

These are highly sensitive classified compartments with very limited dissemination. However, DHS and the the Army's Counter Intelligence Corp in Washington should have been cleared.

I do not know how long Major Hassan had been at Fort Hood in Texas. There are undoubtedly both Army Security Agency and CIC offices at Fort Hood and the question must be raised as to the speed with which this information would have been transferred.

It ia highly likelely that the perconnel office processing his orders to be deployed overseas was not cleared. This sort of matter would have required Commanding General attention.

It may well be that the relevant information had not yet reached Fort Hood, or even that local clearances for it were delayed.

We can say that it should not have been the FBI or NSA's job to evaluate the threat Major Hassan may have posed. That should have been a decision made in Hassan's own chain of command by the lowest level superior officer having the clearance to see the data and being able to order a follow up investigation by the locals. Even had the latter not held the compartmented security clearance they could have been tasked on a pretext.

One other factor may have played a role, Hassan's transient status, blurring the responsible entity and its duty to follow up.

Distribution of the take is extremely limited

[Mark Rhoads]

What in the world is going one with Barack Obama? He is still today, on the day of the memorial, and inspite of mounting evidence that Maj. Hassan was tied to radical Islamic clerics, Obama is still pushing his "stress angle." Follow this link to read the president's own words:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/10/obama_suggests_still_possible_hasan_may_have_cracked_under_stress.html

What FBI investigator who wants to continue his job is going to say, "No Mr. President, we have found evidence linking Hassan to radicals with violent preachments?" The President has already said twice what his preferred story line is and does not care apparently if his public comments chill investigators from following any other leads. This is irresponsible. Sure, it might interfere with his preference to hold the Islamic world not accountable for any acto of terror but his actions and comments are almost Nixonian in coming close to obstruction of justice.
For the benefit of some of the ignorant Left Wing crazoids who posted above,
both H.G.Wells and George Bernard Shaw resigned from the Fabians when they were old enough to know better and both were disgusted by the behavior of Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Wells wrote that the Fabian leaders were "a small group of pendants who beleve that fair ends can be achived by foul means." Shaw called Webb a "Carnival confidence man." Just becuause someone is a good writer does not mean they cannot act like fools when they are young.

[Chris Robling]

Dear Mark,

At this point I am deeply afraid that the first post-911 terrorist attack has taken place on our soil -- and the administration cannot admitt it.

Your post does all who appreciate the strides we made in self defense under President Bush a great service for pointing out the decline in that capacity based on only 9 and half months.

General Casey's elevation of "diversity" over his/our troops' safety, to say nothing of respect for the many loyal and effective Muslim Americans wearing our uniform, is a disgrace.

Thanks as always,
c

[Jerry Springer's mother]

you know if your gonna wire tap and intercept mail in violation of our right to privacy at the very least disseminate the information properly... this was an FBI failure.

[Democrary In Action]

Mr. Rhoads has already said twice what his preferred story line is and does not care apparently if his public comments chill readers from following any other leads. This is irresponsible. Sure, it might interfere with his preference to hold the Islamic world accountable for any act of terror but his actions and comments are almost Nixonian in coming close to obstruction of justice.

Mr. Rhoads and Mr. Robling, your glee that the criminal in this tragedy was a Muslim is apparent. Can you have enough respect for the military and investigators to allow them to do their jobs before you jump to your presumptuous conclusions?

And I know you really want to hate the President. If he had come out strongly saying that he thinks it was an act of terrorism you'd be criticizing him for using the tragedy to political advantage. Too slow, too fast... you guys just hate him, admit it.

Why not let this unfold naturally. Why the rush to judgment? Are you trying to use this tragedy for political advantage? Hmmm...

[John Powers]

Wells was deranged.

His ravings sound exactly like those of a lunatic.

The Allies won WWII, and Rome was spared, with many millions of Catholics fighting in the Allied militaries.

JBP

[Mark Rhoads]

One major problem with Left Wing posters is that they are so boring. Apparently having no real life apart from their obsession with ideology and politics, they just keep babbling on with their nonsense since in their entire lives they have never studied free markets or the rule of law in a democratic country. As far as President Barack Obama is concerned, millions of Americans including me wished him well when he was elected but the jury is in now. He promised a "post-partisan" era of respect for all viewpoints but has governed from the far left whenever he can. Michelle Obama said in 2005 on Channel 7 that Barack was not ready to run for president and she was so right. No, I do not "hate" this or any other president but I reserve the right to criticize any elected official for so many dumb mistakes. Christianity teaches believers to hate the sin but love the sinner. So we should all pray for Barack Obama to grow out of his childish enfatuation with the socialist dogma that his father championed in Kenya when Barack was a smaller child. He's still not too old to go back to college and maybe learn something this time aroung about free markets at the University of Chicago Economics Department. He is a government employee so maybe they will give him a discount on his tuition and I hope they do because he really needs some good econ and accounting courses. A semester or two taking a course in humility if that were offered would surely also help him. The country is stuck with President Obama until at least January 20, 2013 so we need him not to fail in foreign policy for the sake of the country. But we do hope some of his more idiotic domestic policy ideas do fail to become law so that freedom can surive his single term of office.

[Democracy In Action]

You want to talk about boring I'm so tired of hearing you and your conservative ilk prattling on about the 'free market.' Your religion of 'free markets' is not the only solution for every problem. Are you that simple?

'Free market' solutions are based on profit and they don't work well when there is no profit motive. Companies have no vested interest in people who can't work for them to make money. The elderly, ill, and children lose in the free market.

"... they just keep babbling on with their nonsense since in their entire lives they have never studied free markets or the rule of law in a democratic country."

And what about "the rule of law in a democratic country" don't we understand? Man are you arrogant and immature to think you alone understand freedom and the 'rule of law.' I have lived my entire life in the free markets and under the rule of law. Please tell me what I don't understand oh sage of freedom.

Meh...

[John Powers]

"Please tell me what I don't understand"

Among many other things..

1) Bombing the Vatican is not sane.
2) The Axis bombed Malta, a country with a high proportion of Catholics. It was a terrible move for the Nazi's.

JBP

[Y.]

I was shocked to hear General Casey warn that making the connection between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's terrorist act and his Islamic faith could "cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here". I sincerely hope that the General misspoke, 13 dead 30 wounded and so many families forever scarred and we need to worry about diversity? Where are the Generals of our past, Patton, MacArthur? It was a terrorist attack and I fear for what has become of our country, since we have learned nothing since 9-11.
I was shocked to hear General Casey warn that making the connection between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's terrorist act and his Islamic faith could "cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here". I sincerely hope that the General misspoke, 13 dead 30 wounded and so many families forever scarred and we need to worry about diversity? Where are the Generals of our past, Patton, MacArthur? It was a terrorist attack and I fear for what has become of our country, since we have learned nothing since 9-11.

[Democracy In Action]

Mr. Powers,

1) From what I can tell Well's never specifically suggested bombing the Vatican. He said, " Why do we not bomb Rome?." I agree that bombing the Vatican would have been a bad idea culturally. But bombing people is A O.K.?

2)Bombing Catholics is bad? Really? Because we fire bombed Dresden. Killed about 25,000 people. I guess maybe they were Protestants.

And we bombed Tokyo starting in 1942. Killed around 100,000 there. Very few Catholics though. We killed another 220,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess killing Shintos is fine.

Can we just agree that bombing people is bad?

[Democracy In Action]

"I was shocked to hear General Casey warn that making the connection between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's terrorist act and his Islamic faith could "cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here". I sincerely hope that the General misspoke, 13 dead 30 wounded and so many families forever scarred and we need to worry about diversity?"

So I don't understand what you want. You wanted him to say that it was a terrorist attack and then what?

Round up all the Muslim soldiers?

Tell the military that we all need to watch the Muslim soldiers for terrorism?

Have all Muslim soldiers write 1000 words on why they love America?

What do guys want?

Let the investigator do their work. If they find that it was terrorism due to following all the leads then its terrorism. Just killing people isn't terrorism. Motive comes into play here.

But let me say this. If you label it terrorism and it's not you are only helping the enemy. And all to score political points.

Do you really want to give propaganda tools to the radicals that the military is vulnerable? What message are you trying to send?

And you don't think the military isn't already rethinking it internal strategy? Come on guys, think this through a little.

[John Powers]

As a matter of political strategy, attacking specific religions for the sake of religion is disastrous. Generally the bombing of civilians as some type of punishment also fails.

The US specifically did not bomb Kyoto because of the religious significance of the city to the Shinto religion. Seems like common sense.

The point is that making a broad claim...HG Wells said it was a good idea, so it must be right...is a really weak argument.

Shaw is even more problematic, as he disagreed with himself quite a lot, sometimes within the same paragraph.

Here's one from GBS that is certainly appropriate today

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

JBP

[Spense]

"How is Obama radical?"

One only need to look at the radicals he has appointed to be czars to know how he is radical.

Hasan was another Muslim trojan horse terrorist.... they are still many in this country.

[Frank Goudy]

The military is increasingly just another PC bureaucratic body. And if you want to become a general you must toe the line on this issue.

Another example that gets no MSM exposure is what is going on at the Naval Academy. It has been the 'goal' to increase minority representation at any cost and without objective standards to select the many who would like to attend.

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operatations, announced that "diversity is the number one goal" of the academy.

Sure enough, the Academy magically reached its goal of 35% minority. Qualifications are secondary to racial preferences.

Sure would hate to be a young, White male trying to get into the the naval academy- particularly if I did not have any inside help.

And remember, 'goals' always turn out to be 'quotas.' Saw plenty of this in my 30 years in academia.