Funny how everyone made fun of McCain when he hinted that Obama would take the country back to a pre 9/11 mentality and then this happens...
(not saying that the shooting was funny)
Everyone saw the writing on the wall and the government even knew about this guy but was too chicken shit to act on it because they were afraid of being called politically incorrect.
These deaths are 100% on the government.
I like how this thread has turned into an Isreal/Palistinian fluffers thread. I think Joe Leiberman has a lot of balls throwing the "terrorism" canard around so soon, especially if this guy lives. He eventually will be charged with something and be tried.
"Terrorism" as a charge against Hasan simply introduces messy issues to a situation not in need of the complications implicit in the term (incl. the uncertainty of its definition!).
these are the ones that should dominate: MURDER and TREASON.
Re murder: Hasan's religion and politics are irrelevant to his specific intent and his acts. If he wants to pursue a mental illness defense, fine. There's plenty of evidence of premeditation. Who's going to testify to his mental illness? He's had a lot of psychiatrists working close to him - what would they say?
Re treason: Did his acts constitute levying war against the United States? Does he adhere to our enemies? Has he given our enemies aid and comfort within the U.S.? Those are the elements that would need to be proved at a trial for treason; the news items certainly indicate evidence of each of those. Let him defend against those or prove mental illness.
The rest - his religion, his politics - may carry evidence of any or all of the elements above, but of themselves his religion and politics are irrelevant. Others' desires to put them front and center in the shape of "terrorism" are purely political: Distraction from the Essential.
I like how this thread has turned into an Isreal/Palistinian fluffers thread. I think Joe Leiberman has a lot of balls throwing the "terrorism" canard around so soon, especially if this guy lives. He eventually will be charged with something and be tried.
"Terrorism" as a charge against Hasan simply introduces messy issues to a situation not in need of the complications implicit in the term (incl. the uncertainty of its definition!).
these are the ones that should dominate: MURDER and TREASON.
Re murder: Hasan's religion and politics are irrelevant to his specific intent and his acts. If he wants to pursue a mental illness defense, fine. There's plenty of evidence of premeditation. Who's going to testify to his mental illness? He's had a lot of psychiatrists working close to him - what would they say?
Re treason: Did his acts constitute levying war against the United States? Does he adhere to our enemies? Has he given our enemies aid and comfort within the U.S.? Those are the elements that would need to be proved at a trial for treason; the news items certainly indicate evidence of each of those. Let him defend against those or prove mental illness.
The rest - his religion, his politics - may carry evidence of any or all of the elements above, but of themselves his religion and politics are irrelevant. Others' desires to put them front and center in the shape of "terrorism" are purely political: Distraction from the Essential.
It really puts the military in a bind because guys like Hasan should be discharged, but if the military started discharging every soldier who said, "I want out" then enlisted soldiers could quit anytime the nation went to war or made use of the military, turning the military into a fitness and weapons training program and subsidizer of college education. Part of a soldier's bargain is that in exchange for whatever benefits the military offers, they agree that they will be prepared to deploy and enter combat if need be.
All religions have extremists and AFAIK no one is making this asshole a victim.
AHH yes, Make sure to blame it on Obama. I'm sure he was in constant contact with Hasan's "handlers" via Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and ACORN.
I guess your one of the guys who blame 9/11 on Bush.
He said government, not Obama, asshat.
And he directly insinuated the government's poor action was due to Obama. Blaming this act on the president, any president, is stupid.
Not that I'm super surprised or anything.
Didn't Obama say the "buck stops here"?
But I digress. I never did mention Obama. I did mention government. Now, there were two distinct philosophies of government towards terrorism in the last presidential election, one a "pre 9/11 mentality" and the other a "post 9/11 mentality".
The CEO of a company breeds the culture of management withing that company. If the CEO is overly PC, the culture will become overly PC.
Now, there is evidence that this soldier was involved with known terrorists and this information was given to the army.
So, why didn't the army act? Was it because they were too afraid of being called politically incorrect?
Well you actually DID mention Obama in your post on a directly related point, but whatever. That doesn't matter now because in this post you explicitly blame him.
So your indictment is that Obama has created some nebulous culture that causes agents not to follow up legitimate leads due to political correctness. Of course you do this with absolutely no evidence or support whatsoever, but that's never really stopped you before has it? You're perfectly comfortable with filling in the gaps in your knowledge with ultra right crazy.
Well it could be Obama's fault indirectly. Since the information about his dealings with a radical islamic imam were gathered by FBI recording conversations out of the country to known terrorist sympatizers it would be very bad for the Obama administration if a Bush tactic were used to flush out those that want to do us harm, especially if they're in the military. So it's possible nothing much was done about it because Obama didn't want to prove that Bush was right yet again.
So stopping any act using this tactic would prove once again that what bush was doing regarding security was correct (remember Obama keeps continuing what Bush did).
One small correction on what I posted - I just heard Rep Peter King talking about this and the CIA didn't refuse to brief him, they refused to brief him until Tuesday (today.) He asked Friday to be briefed over the weekend. That's a subtle but important difference as I am sure the CIA wants to get its collective ducks in a row before briefing Congress on something it arguably screwed up. Four days' notice seems not unreasonable.
I hold FBI responsible. I think its unreasonable to expect POTUS to be up to date on every investigation the FBI is doing. But they did fuck up in not sharing their info, especially considering what it was, with the Army.
I never said that the president should be micromanaging law enforcement. It is the culture in government that the Obama administration created that allowed this to happen....a "pre 9/11" mentality.
Oops CIA. For some reason I thought FBI had it. Scratch my post above and change it to "I hold CIA responsible"
I dont know man. He hasnt been in office long enough to that kind of effect IMHO.
*shrug*
From the information coming to light, it's clear that Hassan's beliefs were in serious conflict with this oath.I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.