Who knew what about Nidal Malik Hasan?
I thought I would not be revisiting the shooting at Fort Hood so soon, but as the investigation into what happened begins to unfold, I think there are some things that merit mentioning.
First of all, the shooting at Fort Hood had nothing to do with post traumatic stress syndrome, secondhand or otherwise. It is becoming clear that even though Nidal Malik Hasan was born and grew up in Virginia, he had managed to radicalize himself in the Islamic faith. Taken with his actions over a period of several years and how he conducted the attacks, that fact simply can not be denied. The focus of any investigation has to be how this man managed to slip under the radar of the FBI, Homeland Security, and the Army itself. Several hearings are already scheduled, most notably those that
will be conducted by Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins.
If there was any doubt that the finger pointing would start, let’s put that idea to bed. A lot of statements are being made right now, mostly off the record for anonymity’s sake, but the fingers are pointing all over the place. It seems some of the discussion may have to do with how information about ongoing investigations is shared between government agencies. From The Associated Press:
Two government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case on the record, said the Washington-based joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI was notified of communications between Hasan and the imam overseas, and the information was turned over to a Defense Criminal Investigative Service employee assigned to the task force. The communications were gathered by investigators beginning in December 2008 and continuing into early this year.
That defense investigator wrote up an assessment of Hasan after reviewing the communications and the Army major’s personnel file, according to these officials. The assessment concluded Hasan did not merit further investigation – in large part because his communications with the imam were centered on a research paper about the effects of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and the investigator determined that Hasan was in fact working on such a paper, the officials said.
The disclosure came as questions swirled about whether opportunities were missed to head off the massacre in which 13 died and 29 were wounded last Thursday – a familiar, early stage in the investigation of headline-grabbing crimes when public officials involved in a case often speak anonymously as they try to shift any blame to rivals in other agencies.
The disclosure Tuesday of the defense investigator’s role indicated the U.S. military was aware of worrisome behavior by the massacre suspect long before the attack. Following the disclosure, a senior defense official, also demanding anonymity, directly contradicted that notion.
The senior defense official said neither the Army nor any other part of the Defense Department knew of Hasan’s contacts with any Muslim extremists. But the defense official carefully conceded this view was based upon what the Pentagon knows now.
Hours later, the same senior defense official reiterated that the Defense Department was not notified before the Fort Hood massacre of investigations into Hasan, despite the participation of two Defense Department investigators on two joint task forces run by the FBI that looked at Hasan. This defense official asserted that the task force ground rules barred any members from telling their home agency about task force findings without approval of the other investigators and wasn’t aware of whether there was ever any discussion of doing that.
Maybe I am just not a person to be playing the agency rival game and all that goes with it, but this is completely ridiculous. Does this not seem to be shades of September 11, 2001 all over again? Does anyone remember how the terrorists on that fateful day managed to pull of the planning and the attacks? A large portion of the blame lies in the fact that the government agencies charged with protecting us from just such an attack failed to share information and 19 hijackers slipped through the cracks, killing 2,974 innocent civilians in the process.
This is not a game we are playing as we try to protect our country from the threat of terrorism, Islamic or otherwise. There should be no rivalries when it comes to our nation’s security. There should be no question of sharing information or intelligence. The number one priority of government agencies, be it the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, Department of Defense, etc. etc., should be the protection of the United States. Rival agencies indeed!
People need to wake up and understand what Islam is all about.
I was reading recently where someone said that while their may be moderate Muslims, there is no such thing as moderate Islam.
Indeed, Muslims cannot be friends with Christians and Jews despite what some of their scholars insist is a wrong interpretation of the Koran: http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/14851
We have friends whose daughter befriended a Muslim girl. While that girl is allowed to visit their daughter in her home, their daughter cannot go to the Muslim family’s home.
It goes deeper than that too — various verses in the Koran including Surah 9:5 which instructs Muslims to kill infidels. BTW, the word Islam means “submission” — not exactly of the voluntary kind either!
If my memory serves me correct, the inter-agency wall were taken down during the Bush years but resurrected when Obama became President. At least it was rumored they were. If they indeed were put back up, this is the result.
You are right when you say this looks like 9-11. That is because it is. Bill Clinton refused to call the 1993 bombing of the Towers what is was. He was in denial just like Obama and his ilk are doing. There is this insane belief among liberals that if we are just nice enough to radical Muslims, they will be nice back.
Ask Danny Pearl. My guess is, if he could, he would tell you other wise.
What concerns me is that now that we have had one attack on America soil with a President who is dancing around it, we will most definitely see more activity and another attack.
I remember telling a friend of mine a year before 9-11, if Bill Clinton didn’t change how he was dealing with this issue, we would be attacked on our own soil and that would forever change our ability to stay safe. It appears that Obama’s administration has learned any lessons from Bill Clinton’s mistakes.
Dominique´s last blog ..Fort Hood: DEADLY consequences of Political Correctness
It seems the old Washington “two step” has started. Heads will roll and everyone is running for cover while pointing their fingers at others. Sadly it seems we have learned little since 9/11 an interagency cooperation is not what it should have been. Maybe next weeks Senate hearing will shed more light on this. Thank god we have at least one committee chairman who is willing to take a stand—thank you Joe Liebermann.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..Obama Ignores Terror Threat At His Own Peril
The lack of sharing info between agencies is definately part of the problem, as Dominque said, I thought those walls were taken down after the September 11th attacks. I am not sure how the were erected again.
The fact that I just can’t get passed is that our intellegence community knew this man was dangerous and did not stop him. All of the agencies seem to have been following him and even if they didn’t share information it stillseems as if enough was known to have prevented this attack.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Rhode Island Senator compares healthcare mandates to the draft
The sarcastic part of me wants to say that all the relevant government personnel are watching Conservatives. Considering how many times DHS and several other government agencies have visited my blog… While that is perhaps hyperbole, the real fact is that the government seems to not take the threat of radical Islam seriously. This situation seems to prove that assertion. Not only was this man’s radical statements ignored, his actions have been mis-characterized in the media. No one wants to link this to radical Islam, yet the connections are blatantly obvious.
Just an update, but I was hearing on NPR this morning how authorities can not understand how everyone missed the signs of mental illness in Hasan. It seems they are trying to blame this on mental illness.
It is clear that this man was religiously motivated. It is also clear that it was patently obvious during his medical residency in 2003 that he used power point presentations intended for medical presentation to spout radical religious ideology . It is also clear that he was promoted in the face of a poor performance record.
If this man is a terrorist, then we must ask responsible questions (as you are, Larry) about how it is that Hasan slipped through the cracks. That means all of us. I, for one, am completely sick of those who want so desperately to place the blame on Obama and are using this incident to make a cheap political point (have you seen some of the postings of bloggers and the so-called Conserviative media reports?).
It is silly for some to be so eager to classify this as terrorism while also telling us in the same breath that this is Obama’s fault. As well learned from 9-11, there are typically many system breakdowns that lead to a heinous event. Those who say with relish and even glee that “this happened on Obama’s watch” are missing the point. The man was clearly a problem in 2003- so where was the Bush administration , the one who has kept us safe from terrorism since 9-11?
Time for the blame game to stop. In addition to your quesitions, Larry I have another:
Is there something about the transistion of power that is causing information to slip through the cracks? I can’t help but notice that both 9-11 and this incident happened early in a new administration. And I wonder if our system is breaking down.
Good comment, Laurie. You can see my reply below for a more detailed response to the blame game.
I am not sure how to answer you about the transition of power playing a role in what has happened. That may very well be the case. As I mentioned in my article, I am sicking of hearing how these agencies are rivals of each other and are refusing to share information. If I may be so blunt, that is about the stupidest thing I can think of. If you or I had that kind of attitude at our place of employment, we wouldn’t last long at all. Why it is tolerated in our government is beyond me.
Laurie – that is a really good question.
Dominique´s last blog ..Congressional Betrayal…
Laurie – just one other thing. In reference to your comment that this isn’t Obama’s fault I have to disagree with you. Obama is our Commander-in-Chief, and as such anything that slips through the cracks ultimately lands at his feet. It may not be fair but that is the way it is.
As you stated, many people are responsible. One thing I learned in the military however, it the highest ranking person has takes the most responsibility when something happens. This isn’t about how things work in the civilian world, this is about how they work in the military world. All the way up the chain of command, I can guarantee you, that people are going to have to answer for these mistakes. But again, ultimately, the blame will land on Obama’s door simply because it happened on his watch. It is his job as Commander-in-Chief to protect our military and to protect our country.
Political correctness and denial don’t cut it.
Dominique´s last blog ..Congressional Betrayal…
You and I think exactly opposite on this one, but I think we’re still headed towards the same direction. “Fault” implies a mistake, or inaction or inattention. “Respnsibility” implies a duty to act in response to an event. Respectfully, I think that this was clearly not Obama’s “fault”, but that he does have a grave responsibility to investigate and lead corrective measures.
My biggest point: Americans need to grow up and stop playing the blame game. Fingers can be pointed in many directions, but only steadfast hands can right the ship. I don’t think our ideological differences are all that great, in comparison to the real threats from the outside that we all face.
What do you think the reaction might be if this had happened under Bush, or under McCain, had he won? I think it’s rather predictable that the media’s reaction would have been quite different.
In my discussion on the event, I have been more critical of the media and the left as a whole. Obama, in a sense, is another issue. Yes, he’s in charge, and therefore ultimately responsible, but that’s a separate issue. It’s my opinion that there are many that are afraid to come forward for the fear of being called “intolerant.” Considering that the people that reported the “flying imams” were sued for reporting what they thought was suspicious behavior, I think it’s safe to assume that there’s a pattern. If there is someone or something to blame, I would suggest that it is political correctness.
In the interest of fairness, let me address the issue of this all being Obama’s fault. I do not need to go into the reasons I do not agree with the man and his agenda, as I have been there, done that. While I do think the President could have handled the situation a bit differently, it is not really his fault that Hasan went on his shooting spree in the name of Allah.
I believe Matt summed it very well. It is this unreasonable fear of being called intolerant that kept some of the people who had knowledge of Hasan’s behavior from coming forward and nipping it in the bud. Yes, the President seems much more tolerant of radical Islam than I would like him to be, but I do not feel that has any bearing on how these people responded to what they saw in Hasan. If there is blame to place anywhere but at the feet of Hasan himself, it is these people who should share it.
I didn’t mean to infer the killings were Obama’s fault only that he is ultimately responsible as Commander-in-Chief. His job is to make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen. In addition, Larry and Matt, you are right on the political correctness position. But there again, it leads ultimately to Obama. He and his administration are implementing politically correct policies all over the place.
While Hasan held the gun and did the deed, Obama and his administration, the military, our government and the media need to put in policies that will protect our troops so this kind of thing won’t happen again. And… as Brigitte Gabrielle said yesterday, they need to throw political correctness in the garbage.
Dominique´s last blog ..the clenched FIST of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
I’m with you when you encourage our President and our military to use the Hasan massacre to look deeply at policies and attitudes that might have contributed to it. i am curious, though- what do you think the media can do here and why?
I think the media can tell the truth and refer to this as what it is…an act of terrorism. As journalists, it is their job to report the facts and let the chips fall where they may. But many media outlets are not doing that. God forbid they use the T word. I agree with Matt. If this were on George Bush’s watch, the T word would be regularly touted.
I hope and pray Laurie that our president will look deeply at these policies but my gut says otherwise. His actions to this point say otherwise as well. I fear President Obama has split loyalties that may soon put this country in grave danger.
As for the military, I can assure you (unless they have dramatically changed since I got out) that they will look at what must be done to avoid this happening again. The military takes care of their own.
Dominique´s last blog ..the clenched FIST of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
Dominique,
I’ve considered your comments about the media’s responsibility, and I have to respectfully disagree, at least in initial reports. In the beginning, we had no real facts nor any classification of this heinous act. Demanding that the media immediately tip towards “feelings” is to demand that they make a judgement not inn evidence. As you say, let the chips fall where they may, but I think it is highly irresponsible of the media to report with emotion and judgement and possibly causing panic along with it. Anybody remember Richard Jewell? The media, along with authorities, ruched to judgement and fried him in the court of public opinion. Problem? He was innocent. Hasan is different, but I still think caution is the word of the day when it comes to our media.
One more question, Doninique:
Just exactly what are the “split loyalties” that you think the President of the United States has?
In terms of going forward and taking the steps necessary to find out under what conditions this man was allowed to stay in the military, I think at this point I can only take the President at his word.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111409dnproforthood.44c85f8.html
Within our health care debate, many have passionately pointed to the need to call off the attack dogs in medical malpractice suits so that the bottom line causes can be determined and remedied without fear of reprisals, especially in areas where there was no ill intent. I think in this instance we all need to apply that logic to the examination of the case of Hasan. No, it’s not medical malpractice, but there has existed for quite sometime a “gotcha” mentality that I think- as much if not more than PC-ness- is preventing our government from looking at hard problems openly and finding effective solutions.
It is clear that Hasan was allowed to slip through the cracks several times under George Bush’s watch. His residency, the failure fo the FBI to act on what they had intercepted, his promotion after a poor performance review- these things happened before Obama ever took office. Why was the Obama administration not aware of Hasan’s increasingly known radical actions and words? These things continued to happen on his watch, and boiled over into the massacre.
We can no more let the left’s need to draw blood at Bush’s expense prevent us from looking at all the contributing factors that we can let the right’s need to draw blood at Obama’s expense stop us from demanding an accountability investigation.
Back to the original title of this post: Who Knew What? and when, I would add.
Let us have the strength as a country to look at it all, no matter who looks bad, and affect real change that will prevent this from happening again. And let us do that in the spirit of one people united, not as a spilt, partisan body.
I find it somewhat ironic that when a soldier goes on a killing spree on a military base where, presumably, there are lots of people with guns around for protection, the blame falls upon the President of the United States; but when a crazed student goes on a shooting spree on the campus of Virginia Tech the blame falls on the fact that gun control laws are too strict and if everyone on campus was carrying a gun the event would never have been so tragic. How convenient.
Mike,
Actually, from what I can understand, the only people who were carrying weapons on Fort Hood were the military and civilian police. All other weapons were under lock and key. I understand your point, though.
Both of these points are very fresh and reveal angles I’ve neither heard nor read anywhere. I’ll be chewing on their implications for days.
LD has a point. Soldiers do not walk around bases armed to the teeth, or at all for that matter. Mike, the military has strict rules regarding who and who can’t carry weapons, and when they can be carried. I would assume it’s part of the discipline/structure of military life. When one joins the military, they accept the rules and regulations that go with that life. The V-Tech situation is very different, as it was a civilian situation, and we are (supposed to be) guaranteed the right to protect ourselves. It’s not convenient at all, it’s tragic.
Mike – Larry is right. Most personnel on a military base do not carry guns. We are not permitted to carry them on base unless we are part of the military police or other agencies that require them for our jobs. And it was a processing center which is administrative and administrative personnel usually don’t carry weapons either.
You’re analogy is very interesting though. I think the difference is, and this is one non-military don’t always understand, in the military, guns are necessary so the thought of banning them makes no sense. Plus the military runs by different laws. We follow military law. The only time the law of the land comes into play is when we are in a civilian capacity (off base) or when a crime is committed off base. It’s like have two worlds in America. The military and the civilian population.
Also, gun control is being advocated by liberals and progressives, those who want to control us. The implementation of gun laws is not for our benefit but theirs so they garner complete control of the population.
On the other hand, in the military we carry guns to protect you and the rest of the civilian population. The motivation is very different.
Dominique´s last blog ..the clenched FIST of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
Honestly, Dominique, I think you missed Mike’s point entirely but I’ll let him deal with it if that is so.
I do have a simple question: Why is there a restriction on carrying guns on a military base for those trained in weaponry?
The only time we use weapons is when were at war. I was trained in Basic Training but I only needed that training during war time. My non-war time job was administration so a gun wasn’t necessary. I would assume it is also for safety.
Dominique´s last blog ..the clenched FIST of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
As far as missing Mike’s point, I re-read what he said and if I did, I don’t see it.
Dominique´s last blog ..the clenched FIST of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
Just so I’m clear on this — we don’t have our military carry weapons on a military base but it’s a good idea to have every student on campus carry a weapon in order to prevent another Va Tech? They’re too young to drink but let’s arm them to the teeth…to protect our freedom. Oh but wait, I thought that was the militatry’s job? I’m so confused.
I really do not want to go off into the territory of who should be able to carry guns and where. I think my position on the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear, as we have pretty much decimated that bush already. However, let me make an observation.
Taking the shooting at Fort Hood for an example, what would have been a possible outcome if there had been a soldier who was trained to use his weapon actually carrying it? Is it possible that he would have been able to take Hasan out before he killed 14 innocent human beings, if you count the unborn child that was killed?
As I said, I will chew on the implications of the points Mike and Larry made for a long time. But perhaps this is the wrong thread to start a chat about guns, although I am more confused than ever as to the feasibility of everybody packing.