Congress starts to demand Obama classify Fort Hood attack as terrorism

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2013/02/members-of-congress-demand-obama.html

Friday, February 15, 2013

Members of Congress Demand Obama Administration Classify Fort Hood Massacre as Act of Terrorism

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a self-proclaimed "Soldier of Allah," massacred 13 people (including a pregnant woman) at Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akbar." The Obama Administration classified the shooting as "workplace violence," similar to an attack by a disgruntled postal worker. Some members of Congress are calling for a change in the ruling.


<iframe height="360" id="kaltura_player_1360906998" src="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_lrg1xh3p/uiconf_id/3775332/st_cache/26369?referer=http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/dramatic-video-ft-hood-shooting-aftermath-18485848&autoPlay=false&addThis.playerSize=392x221&freeWheel.siteSectionId=nws_offsite&closedCaptionActive=true&addThis.playerSize=640x360&closedCaptionsOverPlayer.fontsize=18" width="640" style="border: 0px solid rgb(255, 255, 255);"></iframe>
Watch More News Videos at ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/video) | Technology News (http://abcnews.go.com/technology) | Celebrity News (http://abcnews.go.com/entertainment)

ABC News--In the wake of an ABC News story detailing claims by victims of the Fort Hood shooting that they have been neglected by the military and 'betrayed' by President Obama, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee has sent a letter to his fellow members of Congress demanding that the Obama administration classify the attack as a terrorist act and provide full benefits to the victims and their families.

"It is time for the administration to recognize the Fort Hood shooting for what it is—an act of terrorism," wrote Rep. Michael McCaul, R.-Texas, in a letter cosigned by Rep. Frank Wolf, R.-Virginia. "To date, the Department of Defense and the Army classify this attack [as] 'workplace violence,' despite mountains of evidence [that] clearly proves the Ft. Hood shooting was an act of terror."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, they attempt to correct obama's mistake. Of course they must not ever question why the CiC chose to shaft those victims of that terrorist attack!
Must not criticize "dear leader".... May hurt his ffing feelings... -Tyr

[Kathianne]

Should have been done at the time of the shooting.

[Voted4Reagan]

wont happen....

Obama will block this

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

wont happen....

Obama will block this
MAYBE , MAYBE NOT. We shall see how far it goes.

[logroller]

The reasons for classification of workplace violence are legal; either to shield the administration from liability (there were red flags deemed benign) or protect ucmj jurisdiction. If its the former, then the administration's lack of due diligence needs to be addressed. I'm sure most here would agree. With that in mind, consider this:

18 USC 2331
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

with respect to the recent murders committed by ex-LAPD officer/soldier Dorner, it would appear that his acts also qualify as terrorism. So if Dorner's accusations against the LAPD HAVE merit, and the administration failed to address those claims, the LAPD IS liable for the deaths that resulted from his shooting rampage. Agree or disagree?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The reasons for classification of workplace violence are legal; either to shield the administration from liability (there were red flags deemed benign) or protect ucmj jurisdiction. If its the former, then the administration's lack of due diligence needs to be addressed. I'm sure most here would agree. With that in mind, consider this:

with respect to the recent murders committed by ex-LAPD officer/soldier Dorner, it would appear that his acts also qualify as terrorism. So if Dorner's accusations against the LAPD HAVE merit, and the administration failed to address those claims, the LAPD IS liable for the deaths that resulted from his shooting rampage. Agree or disagree?


Two entirely different subjects . This thread is about Fort Hood terrorist attack not Dorner. About obama classifying it as not a terrorist attack!
Dorner was ex military but not serving while he murdered those innocent people. He was a cop then. Also he did not do his deeds because of religion -Islam.

[logroller]

Two entirely different subjects . This thread is about Fort Hood terrorist attack not Dorner. About obama classifying it as not a terrorist attack!
Dorner was ex military but not serving while he murdered those innocent people. He was a cop then. Also he did not do his deeds because of religion -Islam.
Both could qualify as domestic terrorism according to the US law...which makes NO MENTION OF ISLAM. So what say you; aren't we bound by US law? I posited why the admin would not classify fort hood as a terrorist attack, drawing similarities to the dorner attacks; rather on point. So either find me a law that says only Islamists commit terrorist acts, or explain why the law I've listed excludes ex-cops/ ex-soldiers or anyone else--it's quite broad really. If anything; the fact that Hassan was active military is likely the reason he isn't being charged as a terrorist-- he's under ucmj jurisdiction, which has no charge of terrorism. So you're really presenting support for your counterpoint: that terrorism shouldn't be the charge against Hassan.

[jafar00]

If Fort Hood is terrorism, then so is every other shooting in the US which I might add is an almost daily occurrence. It seems that school is the most dangerous place you can go in the US. You have less chance getting shot in the army and posted to Afghanistan.

[logroller]

If Fort Hood is terrorism, then so is every other shooting in the US which I might add is an almost daily occurrence. It seems that school is the most dangerous place you can go in the US. You have less chance getting shot in the army and posted to Afghanistan.
Terrorism has a legal definition that DOES NOT apply to all shootings in the US. At its core, terrorism is a violent act intended to intimidate/coerce the government or a civilian population. Robbing one person with a gun isn't a population. A drive by shooting wouldn't be intimidation; unless the act was committed to, say, silence a neighborhood into not reporting criminal activities of gang or some such-- that would be using violence (although, even the mere threat could be IMO) to intimidate a population. Also, that would qualify as interfering with the operation of government; which is also considered terrorism.

[jafar00]

Terrorism has a legal definition that DOES NOT apply to all shootings in the US. At its core, terrorism is a violent act intended to intimidate/coerce the government or a civilian population. Robbing one person with a gun isn't a population. A drive by shooting wouldn't be intimidation; unless the act was committed to, say, silence a neighborhood into not reporting criminal activities of gang or some such-- that would be using violence (although, even the mere threat could be IMO) to intimidate a population. Also, that would qualify as interfering with the operation of government; which is also considered terrorism.

So Hassan is not a terrorist. He just snapped.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Both could qualify as domestic terrorism according to the US law...which makes NO MENTION OF ISLAM. So what say you; aren't we bound by US law? I posited why the admin would not classify fort hood as a terrorist attack, drawing similarities to the dorner attacks; rather on point. So either find me a law that says only Islamists commit terrorist acts, or explain why the law I've listed excludes ex-cops/ ex-soldiers or anyone else--it's quite broad really. If anything; the fact that Hassan was active military is likely the reason he isn't being charged as a terrorist-- he's under ucmj jurisdiction, which has no charge of terrorism. So you're really presenting support for your counterpoint: that terrorism shouldn't be the charge against Hassan.

This was an attack on a military base not murdering out in the civilian population. It was terrorism and the terrorist was a military officer that CHANGED HIS ALLEGIANCE BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGION!!

[logroller]

This was an attack on a military base not murdering out in the civilian population. It was terrorism and the terrorist was a military officer that CHANGED HIS ALLEGIANCE BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGION!!
Exactly. it wasn't against civilians, nor committed by a civilian, nor even an enemy-- these facts all complicate terrorism charges. I've stated the most nefarious possible reason for the administration not classifying it as terrorism. And posited the legal ramifications involved, including relevant law; both in his thread regarding civilian law and previously regarding ucmj. You have offered nothin but stated opinion...but your opinion isn't based on law...its ignorant of it. go figure, you're consistent lack of legal justification leads to disappointment.
You speak to his switching of allegiance, but you have no proof of that; he could easily say he was upset by what the soldiers (his coworkers) did and what he was expected to do; blame religion all you want, but in the eyes of the law, its merely his moral compass. That his compass is deranged, well, that's why murder isn't condoned under us law for religious reasons...but neither does it make him a terrorist unless certain legal tests are satisfied.Laws have words, and those words have definitions; you entitled to you opinion, but not your own definitions. I asked you before whether you believe the government is bound by US law; and you failed to affirm, then restate an extra-legal position. perhaps you just like disappointment. :dunno:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Exactly. it wasn't against civilians, nor committed by a civilian, nor even an enemy-- these facts all complicate terrorism charges. I've stated the most nefarious possible reason for the administration not classifying it as terrorism. And posited the legal ramifications involved, including relevant law; both in his thread regarding civilian law and previously regarding ucmj. You have offered nothin but stated opinion...but your opinion isn't based on law...its ignorant of it. go figure, you're consistent lack of legal justification leads to disappointment.
You speak to his switching of allegiance, but you have no proof of that; he could easily say he was upset by what the soldiers (his coworkers) did and what he was expected to do; blame religion all you want, but in the eyes of the law, its merely his moral compass. That his compass is deranged, well, that's why murder isn't condoned under us law for religious reasons...but neither does it make him a terrorist unless certain legal tests are satisfied.Laws have words, and those words have definitions; you entitled to you opinion, but not your own definitions. I asked you before whether you believe the government is bound by US law; and you failed to affirm, then restate an extra-legal position. perhaps you just like disappointment. :dunno:

Sure log, you know better than this expert on terrorism. Perhaps you can point me to exactly how your expertise is superior and where you studied for your degree. -Tyr


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/pentagon-will-not-label-fort-hood-shootings-terror/?page=all

When presenting its case against Maj. Hasan, prosecutors will undoubtedly point to email chains between the defendant and al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/) leader Anwar al-Awlaki (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/anwar-al-awlaki/), Mr. Zaid (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mark-zaid/) noted.
“There’s clearly going to be terrorist angles in the process,” he said. “And calling it terror is not going to change the nature of the incident or the [jurors’] knowledge about it.”
Jeffrey F. Addicott (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jeffrey-f-addicott/), the director for Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary’s University School of Law in San Antonio, accused the Pentagon (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/) of “playing word games” just days before Monday night’s final debate between President Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney in which foreign policy was the main focus.
Acknowledging Maj. Hasan’s alleged shooting spree as a major terrorism attack on the homeland “destroys the administration’s narrative that al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/) is winding down” and there is a diminishing threat of a terrorist attack occurring on U.S. soil, Mr. Addicott (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jeffrey-f-addicott/) said.
“This war against al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/) is not localized to Afghanistan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/afghanistan/) and Pakistan — the problem here is that we have many people who are not members of al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/) but they are infected with the virus of radical Islam,” he said. “To say that Hasan was not motivated by radical Islamic extremism is absurd.”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/pentagon-will-not-label-fort-hood-shootings-terror/#ixzz2L5GJnnuK
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes)

[jimnyc]

The reason I would label it terrorism is because I don't think he just snapped one day. I think this was a premeditated mass murder. His connections to Awlaki were clear, and he wanted to know about the afterlife, suicide attacks and such. He even wanted to know from Awlaki if it were OK that innocents were killed in an attack. There is little doubt, to me, what this guy was planning and what he eventually executed. I think the government knows this too, hence the fact that the joint terrorism task force were involved.

[logroller]

Sure log, you know better than this expert on terrorism. Perhaps you can point me to exactly how your expertise is superior and where you studied for your degree. -Tyr


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/pentagon-will-not-label-fort-hood-shootings-terror/?page=all

When presenting its case against Maj. Hasan, prosecutors will undoubtedly point to email chains between the defendant and al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/) leader Anwar al-Awlaki (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/anwar-al-awlaki/), Mr. Zaid (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mark-zaid/) noted.
“There’s clearly going to be terrorist angles in the process,” he said. “And calling it terror is not going to change the nature of the incident or the [jurors’] knowledge about it.”
Jeffrey F. Addicott (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jeffrey-f-addicott/), the director for Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary’s University School of Law in San Antonio, accused the Pentagon (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/) of “playing word games” just days before Monday night’s final debate between President Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney in which foreign policy was the main focus.
Acknowledging Maj. Hasan’s alleged shooting spree as a major terrorism attack on the homeland “destroys the administration’s narrative that al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/) is winding down” and there is a diminishing threat of a terrorist attack occurring on U.S. soil, Mr. Addicott (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jeffrey-f-addicott/) said.
“This war against al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/) is not localized to Afghanistan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/afghanistan/) and Pakistan — the problem here is that we have many people who are not members of al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/) but they are infected with the virus of radical Islam,” he said. “To say that Hasan was not motivated by radical Islamic extremism is absurd.”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/pentagon-will-not-label-fort-hood-shootings-terror/#ixzz2L5GJnnuK
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes)
oh, we're running credentials now? I do have a degree; do you? somehow i doubt it. I suspect that any institution in which you've been a part, involved being released, not graduating. If you had one, you'd know how to assess a source for personal bias. To whih our expert is suspect.
Never said my opinion was superior; nice to see youve returned to Squawking again. These experts, especially Addicott, has vested financial interest in the "narrative" of al Qaida and other terrorism remaining in the spotlight. So the same bias that he accuses the admin of, he is merely the antithesis. I submitted an equally plausible explanation, that it reduces the liability since the admin knew of the contact betwe al awalki (sp) and submit that the same type of coverup is going in LA. You just dismiss that as different because It doesn't fit your narrative-- that every act of terrorism has Islamic origins and every act of wrongdoing by government is Obama.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

oh, we're running credentials now? I do have a degree; do you? somehow i doubt it. I suspect that any institution in which you've been a part, involved being released, not graduating. If you had one, you'd know how to assess a source for personal bias. To whih our expert is suspect.
Never said my opinion was superior; nice to see youve returned to Squawking again. These experts, especially Addicott, has vested financial interest in the "narrative" of al Qaida and other terrorism remaining in the spotlight. So the same bias that he accuses the admin of, he is merely the antithesis. I submitted an equally plausible explanation, that it reduces the liability since the admin knew of the contact betwe al awalki (sp) and submit that the same type of coverup is going in LA. You just dismiss that as different because It doesn't fit your narrative-- that every act of terrorism has Islamic origins and every act of wrongdoing by government is Obama.

A sign of weakness is your accusation of my "release" because I've never been incarcerated in prison. Only been arrested three times for defending myself in fights. Each time I was found not guilty in court. Self defense being a natural born right of every human that has ever existed. Did it make you feel good or was it "superior" to cast false aspersions against me?
Sure, I bet you have a PHD too, = PraiseHisownDumbness! :laugh:
How many times are you going to spew forth your falsely based suspicions of my life?
We have had this falsely based antagonistic crap about me spit forth from you before and each time after the smoke cleared you were looking foolish and disappeared for a time.
I asked how you were expert over this guy and you come back with having a degree. Well , the subject was terrorism so your degree in what(?), "blustering" , proves exactly what?:laugh:

And about "personal bias" , a concept you completely fail to consider in Dorner's case. Such convenience points either to stupidity or deceit/hypocrisy, neither being a mark of honor IMHO.-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

If Fort Hood is terrorism, then so is every other shooting in the US which I might add is an almost daily occurrence. It seems that school is the most dangerous place you can go in the US. You have less chance getting shot in the army and posted to Afghanistan.

The Army Major did more than shoot and kill soldiers. He also spoke as he killed them. And he spoke the same terms terrorists use a lot. His motive was to terrorize. To prove that the war against America could be fought even on a supposedly secure Army base. His very utterances "God is Great" and his close contact with other terrorists prove to me his is an act of terrorism.

Those victims at Ft. Hood deserve full military honors and this country must fight for their rights. As the congress is currently in the process of doing. It should have embarrassed the Obama admin the way that reporter was dealt with by that official of the Army.

[Robert A Whit]

The reason I would label it terrorism is because I don't think he just snapped one day. I think this was a premeditated mass murder. His connections to Awlaki were clear, and he wanted to know about the afterlife, suicide attacks and such. He even wanted to know from Awlaki if it were OK that innocents were killed in an attack. There is little doubt, to me, what this guy was planning and what he eventually executed. I think the government knows this too, hence the fact that the joint terrorism task force were involved.

I watched last night 48 hrs. An Army Sgt was accused in a civilian court, 4 times of murder in the first degree. Kentucky must have serious problems investigating crimes since the cops and lawyers there managed to create problems and no jury was willing to convict. The civilian phase took some 4 years and the Sgt was released.

Well, the Army he was in of course knew of his legal troubles.

So, how long did it take the Army to move from indictment to sentencing?

Eight days.

But for the Major that murdered many on an army post, he still has not suffered trial nor punishment. I mean, 3 years? One wonders if Obama hates to punish Muslims.

His case is so easy.

What ought to happen is the Army take him out to a range, tie him to a post, have an Army crowd watching, FREE popcorn, beer and hot dogs, watch the man be shot to death.

Why not? He shot in front of many witnesses.

[Kathianne]

Since it's 'ok' to target Americans abroad with drones, when considered aligning with terror organizations, then it certainly would hold that Americans committing murder here for reasons aligned with those same terror organizations, should be charged with terror, not murder.

[logroller]

A sign of weakness is your accusation of my "release" because I've never been incarcerated in prison. Only been arrested three times for defending myself in fights. Each time I was found not guilty in court. Self defense being a natural born right of every human that has ever existed. Did it make you feel good or was it "superior" to cast false aspersions against me?
Sure, I bet you have a PHD too, = PraiseHisownDumbness! :laugh:
How many times are you going to spew forth your falsely based suspicions of my life?
We have had this falsely based antagonistic crap about me spit forth from you before and each time after the smoke cleared you were looking foolish and disappeared for a time.
I asked how you were expert over this guy and you come back with having a degree. Well , the subject was terrorism so your degree in what(?), "blustering" , proves exactly what?:laugh:

And about "personal bias" , a concept you completely fail to consider in Dorner's case. Such convenience points either to stupidity or deceit/hypocrisy, neither being a mark of honor IMHO.-Tyr
feel better, not really; I felt fine before. But it had the desired effect-- defense of my opinion against your indignant attack taunting expert testimony as superior to my own personal opinions. That his position as expert holds some greater validity than my own...Perhaps i should have mentioned the legal expertise and, furthermore, authoritative position of the administration. Nay, the admin would assuredly be cast as biased. But what you fail to digest, is that my arguments here stand alone; I don't rest my laurels upon another's opinion. I've drawn my own conclusions; not merely parroting another's. fwiw, Im not against your so-called expert; nor does his support conflict with my own--did I or did I not submit that under domestic terrorism laws, Fort Hood would qualify? I offered an explanation for it not being classified as such by the administration, to which you offered no counteragument-- just squawking some expert opinion (not even an argument just an a priori acceptance of his opinion and a prima facie dismissal of mine.) my degree is nothing more than proof i can complete intellectual tasks: challenge and compare sources, integrate broad and specific arguments, synthesize new ideas and profer support of the same. it doesnt even mean the ideas are correct, merely that i understand the process. For example, I've read the transcripts of his speeches; have you? Have you read about how he thinks we should be actively promoting democracy in the world's governments; ( arab spring perhaps) or how we destroyed al qaida's organizational structure between 2001 and 2004? Yet Now he accuses Obama of furthering a narrative that the organization is "winding down". Seems it was devastated 8 years prior; now obama claiming it doesnt have the power it once did is some grand narrative. Tsk tsk. My position that this is a move to shield liability has merit; theres ample evidence to support that motive pervades the current administration; see fast and furious, executive privilege or the Libyan embassy attack. The shielding of liability, legal, political or otherwise, is a common motivation among politicians. The covering-up of injurous stories is equally commonplace. I'm not surprised by this; but im not contented by it either. I merely seek to draw similarities across the gamut of government, specifically enforcement, in an attempt to create a dialogue that is considerate of the broader impact hyper politico narratives have upon our opinions and the actions of government. You proved my point. Heres is a guy dorner who laid out in a manifesto the grievances against a government agency and the changes he sought to bring about through violence against not only those he blames for it, but any that get in his way. If that doesn't fit the bill of terrorism, then a soldier, discontent with the actions of the institution to which he is a part, using violence either for retribution or to prevent other alleged grievant occurrences could likewise be designated murderous rampage/ workplace violence. Yet for reasons I surmise to be he's not shouting Arabic, Dorner's just a malcontented murderer; while Hassan standing trial for murder under court martial is some dastardly narrative put forth by CiC.

[jimnyc]

Log, or others thinking this was just workplace violence - what are your thoughts on his continued contact with a terror leader, Awlaki, and his continued discussion with him about terror attacks? Do those actions, at all, add some insight into his line of thinking and what his motives were, or what he was looking to accomplish?

[logroller]

Log, or others thinking this was just workplace violence - what are your thoughts on his continued contact with a terror leader, Awlaki, and his continued discussion with him about terror attacks? Do those actions, at all, add some insight into his line of thinking and what his motives were, or what he was looking to accomplish?
well I'd not believe it was just workplace violence; I'm saying there are reasons for it being classified as such.
His contact with Awlaki undoubtedly speaks to his motives. I can't reasonably believe he was merely doing research, let alone that he "just snapped". These communications having occurred under the watchful eye of government only add to the complications surrounding his status as a officer in the military he turned against-- which speaks volumes upon the ineptitude of the administration. But he was in the military, and his actions against his fellow service members cannot be absolved because he was Muslim and took extremes and heinous action. If he had infiltrated the military as a terrorist, that would be the end of it. But I don't believe that he was a terrorist when he signed up; he became one after seeing and hearing what was happening. This doesn't excuse his actions; but neither is it an open and shut case. If we are to condemn him as a terrorist, mustn't we also consider any number of soldiers whose actions were unlawful? There have been cases of military members committing atrocities of war, in conflict with general rules of warfare and some of these have been accompanied by warning signs of impending violence responsive to the same inept policies. It's entirely circular. It becomes muddied, legally speaking, if we start differentiating military members' actions as terror inducing in one event, yet an isolated act of vengeance in another-- when both originate from the same source: government enabled (if not endorsed) actions in conflict with one's personal beliefs. That's why, IMO, he is being charged in military courts which have no terrorism charges. To do otherwise would introduce speculation into the entirety of twelve years of warfare having left us exposed. Wouldn't we rue the day where our own system not only failed to protect us, but found us guilty of committing the things we sought to stop?
As I said earlier, this may well be a coverup by the admin; but the fervor against Hassan's acts has little to do with justice being served, it will be by ucmj, nor even fighting terror acts, unless one submits those persons most intimately involved in the war's first hand accounts can be so discouraged by the actions taken to win that some will commit the same acts that led to he war starting. This issue has broadly turned the people against the realities involved, which has a far different agenda than combatting the war on terror or assuaging terror acts-- its a blend of CYA and stubborn tenacity. No different than the gun control politics riding on the coattails of school shootings calling for reasonable limits that wouldn't have prevented the atrocity anyways. Never let a crisis go to waste...right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

well I'd not believe it was just workplace violence; I'm saying there are reasons for it being classified as such.
His contact with Awlaki undoubtedly speaks to his motives. I can't reasonably believe he was merely doing research, let alone that he "just snapped". These communications having occurred under the watchful eye of government only add to the complications surrounding his status as a officer in the military he turned against-- which speaks volumes upon the ineptitude of the administration. But he was in the military, and his actions against his fellow service members cannot be absolved because he was Muslim and took extremes and heinous action. If he had infiltrated the military as a terrorist, that would be the end of it. But I don't believe that he was a terrorist when he signed up; he became one after seeing and hearing what was happening. This doesn't excuse his actions; but neither is it an open and shut case. If we are to condemn him as a terrorist, mustn't we also consider any number of soldiers whose actions were unlawful? There have been cases of military members committing atrocities of war, in conflict with general rules of warfare and some of these have been accompanied by warning signs of impending violence responsive to the same inept policies. It's entirely circular. It becomes muddied, legally speaking, if we start differentiating military members' actions as terror inducing in one event, yet an isolated act of vengeance in another-- when both originate from the same source: government enabled (if not endorsed) actions in conflict with one's personal beliefs. That's why, IMO, he is being charged in military courts which have no terrorism charges. To do otherwise would introduce speculation into the entirety of twelve years of warfare having left us exposed. Wouldn't we rue the day where our own system not only failed to protect us, but found us guilty of committing the things we sought to stop?
As I said earlier, this may well be a coverup by the admin; but the fervor against Hassan's acts has little to do with justice being served, it will be by ucmj, nor even fighting terror acts, unless one submits those persons most intimately involved in the war's first hand accounts can be so discouraged by the actions taken to win that some will commit the same acts that led to he war starting. This issue has broadly turned the people against the realities involved, which has a far different agenda than combatting the war on terror or assuaging terror acts-- its a blend of CYA and stubborn tenacity. No different than the gun control politics riding on the coattails of school shootings calling for reasonable limits that wouldn't have prevented the atrocity anyways. Never let a crisis go to waste...right?

How clever, first you declare you do not think that it was workplace violence then you declare they had "reasons" for declaring it so.
Cite those reasons then. And if they justify lying and shafting injured military and the families of those murdered perhaps you have a case. Otherwise what you put forth is its ok for the government to lie and abuse even its own soldiers and their families! Which is exactly what the government thinks too!
Its your position so citing the reasons should be a snap. I eagerly await you listing those reasons!

[aboutime]

How clever, first you declare you do not think that it was workplace violence then you declare they had "reasons" for declaring it so.
Cite those reasons then. And if they justify lying and shafting injured military and the families of those murdered perhaps you have a case. Otherwise what you put forth is its ok for the government to lie and abuse even its own soldiers and their families! Which is exactly what the government thinks too!
Its your position so citing the reasons should be a snap. I eagerly await you listing those reasons!


Tyr. That's how the Double-standards, two-faced, hypocrites Cover Their Butts. Wordsmithing, rhetoric, semantic tricks that never quite nail down their Honest feelings, or opinions in order to avoid being labeled by their Phony friends as Racists, or Hypocrites.
It also explains how, and why they never quite become responsible for answering a question from anyone else...unless they can include another question to distract from their inability to be Honest.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr. That's how the Double-standards, two-faced, hypocrites Cover Their Butts. Wordsmithing, rhetoric, semantic tricks that never quite nail down their Honest feelings, or opinions in order to avoid being labeled by their Phony friends as Racists, or Hypocrites.
It also explains how, and why they never quite become responsible for answering a question from anyone else...unless they can include another question to distract from their inability to be Honest.

That is exactly what I want log to clarify. First he states he does not believe it to be workplace violence then he proceeds to justify reasons the government may have declared it so! As if that kind of corrupt and deceitful action can have any true justification. Additionally he attempts to combine the subject matter of this thread with the actions of Dorner! Which is ridiculous!

[jimnyc]

well I'd not believe it was just workplace violence; I'm saying there are reasons for it being classified as such.
His contact with Awlaki undoubtedly speaks to his motives. I can't reasonably believe he was merely doing research, let alone that he "just snapped". These communications having occurred under the watchful eye of government only add to the complications surrounding his status as a officer in the military he turned against-- which speaks volumes upon the ineptitude of the administration. But he was in the military, and his actions against his fellow service members cannot be absolved because he was Muslim and took extremes and heinous action. If he had infiltrated the military as a terrorist, that would be the end of it. But I don't believe that he was a terrorist when he signed up; he became one after seeing and hearing what was happening. This doesn't excuse his actions; but neither is it an open and shut case. If we are to condemn him as a terrorist, mustn't we also consider any number of soldiers whose actions were unlawful? There have been cases of military members committing atrocities of war, in conflict with general rules of warfare and some of these have been accompanied by warning signs of impending violence responsive to the same inept policies. It's entirely circular. It becomes muddied, legally speaking, if we start differentiating military members' actions as terror inducing in one event, yet an isolated act of vengeance in another-- when both originate from the same source: government enabled (if not endorsed) actions in conflict with one's personal beliefs. That's why, IMO, he is being charged in military courts which have no terrorism charges. To do otherwise would introduce speculation into the entirety of twelve years of warfare having left us exposed. Wouldn't we rue the day where our own system not only failed to protect us, but found us guilty of committing the things we sought to stop?
As I said earlier, this may well be a coverup by the admin; but the fervor against Hassan's acts has little to do with justice being served, it will be by ucmj, nor even fighting terror acts, unless one submits those persons most intimately involved in the war's first hand accounts can be so discouraged by the actions taken to win that some will commit the same acts that led to he war starting. This issue has broadly turned the people against the realities involved, which has a far different agenda than combatting the war on terror or assuaging terror acts-- its a blend of CYA and stubborn tenacity. No different than the gun control politics riding on the coattails of school shootings calling for reasonable limits that wouldn't have prevented the atrocity anyways. Never let a crisis go to waste...right?

I can agree with a decent amount of what you say, no doubt. But, when the day came for Hasan to make his move, there is no doubt in my mind it was a terrorist act. Did he join the military with the sole intent of committing a terror attack? Don't know and we probably never will. But if he sought guidance from a terror leader over a length of time, it kind of makes sense. It's obvious he wanted to send a message. I don't think he needed to join with intent anyway. It's still a terror attack if he later disagreed with their actions, sought guidance from a terror leader, planned an attack, and executed it to send his message.

[logroller]

How clever, first you declare you do not think that it was workplace violence then you declare they had "reasons" for declaring it so.
Cite those reasons then. And if they justify lying and shafting injured military and the families of those murdered perhaps you have a case. Otherwise what you put forth is its ok for the government to lie and abuse even its own soldiers and their families! Which is exactly what the government thinks too!
Its your position so citing the reasons should be a snap. I eagerly await you listing those reasons!
I already have listed such reasons; in fact your first line admitted so much. Refute them if you please; but putting quotes around them is little more than semantic indignation.
First and foremost, Hassan was (and is, pending discharge) an officer in the US military. His attack targeted uniformed personnel of the us military; under law, they were his brethren. Given these two facts, uniform code of military justice has primary jurisdiction in prosecuting the case. Ucmj has no provision for terrorism; so if his crime is classified as terrorism, trial by court martial would be the wrong venue but, rather and a civilian court. What harm is there in trying him in civilian courts you may ask-- it would undermine the long held privilege military courts have enjoyed in prosecution their own. A privilege which protects all service members under domestic law (ibid, ucmj) as well as international law, specifically the geneva convention. To undermine this long-held privilege would result in a watershed of uniformed service members being held accountable by civilian courts the world around; for at once the United States declares its service members exempted of primary jurisdiction according to its own laws, such precedence would surely be proffered in other cases with pervasive and contemptuous results.

[logroller]

I can agree with a decent amount of what you say, no doubt. But, when the day came for Hasan to make his move, there is no doubt in my mind it was a terrorist act. Did he join the military with the sole intent of committing a terror attack? Don't know and we probably never will. But if he sought guidance from a terror leader over a length of time, it kind of makes sense. It's obvious he wanted to send a message. I don't think he needed to join with intent anyway. It's still a terror attack if he later disagreed with their actions, sought guidance from a terror leader, planned an attack, and executed it to send his message.
I agree with everything you said; but it doesn't mean the rule of law should be administered intermittently. The bill of rights has undoubtedly resulted in more criminals walking free on technicalities, but n'er would you say the BoR shouldn't apply. Again, I'm talking about the rule of law; never was our country's system of laws supposed to be perfect, just more perfect. Perhaps the rules should be changed (nearly 250 years of changes are already on the books); but understand that many a well-intentioned change has had forewarned, undesirable consequences. (think domestic welfare or int'l rules of war) So if you think military service members should face civilian charges in lieu of court martial, beware the consequences.

[logroller]

Tyr. That's how the Double-standards, two-faced, hypocrites Cover Their Butts. Wordsmithing, rhetoric, semantic tricks that never quite nail down their Honest feelings, or opinions in order to avoid being labeled by their Phony friends as Racists, or Hypocrites.
It also explains how, and why they never quite become responsible for answering a question from anyone else...unless they can include another question to distract from their inability to be Honest.
You're retired navy, right? So were you, and are you not still, under the personal jurisdiction of ucmj?

[aboutime]

You're retired navy, right? So were you, and are you not still, under the personal jurisdiction of ucmj?


Technically. No. But I live my life as if my OATH was still in effect, up until someone mentions the present CIC. The One who Ignores, and Disobey's his Oath.

Under jurisdiction? No. Been a Civilian since 1995. Civil laws, and the Constitution apply.

[logroller]

Technically. No. But I live my life as if my OATH was still in effect, up until someone mentions the present CIC. The One who Ignores, and Disobey's his Oath.

Under jurisdiction? No. Been a Civilian since 1995. Civil laws, and the Constitution apply.
glad I asked; I'd thought it might continue, but wasn't sure. Hypothetically, let's say you were still active and, while on base, committed a crime against a fellow soldier; would you be charged in a civilian court or a military one?

[Kathianne]

glad I asked; I'd thought it might continue, but wasn't sure. Hypothetically, let's say you were still active and, while on base, committed a crime against a fellow soldier; would you be charged in a civilian court or a military one?

That wasn't the case here. In this case his issue was Islam and the infidels. He made and maintained contacts, sought advice, from known terrorist. When he went shooting, he opened with Allah Akbar, and opened fire. This wasn't a workplace problem, this was a philosophical/political issue with our government, taking out his rage on known defenseless military personnel. Since they were unarmed, representing the US government, it was a terror attack.

[logroller]

That wasn't the case here. In this case his issue was Islam and the infidels. He made and maintained contacts, sought advice, from known terrorist. When he went shooting, he opened with Allah Akbar, and opened fire. This wasn't a workplace problem, this was a philosophical/political issue with our government, taking out his rage on known defenseless military personnel. Since they were unarmed, representing the US government, it was a terror attack.


I dont dispute your logic. im saying its a matter of legal jurisdiction; show where in the UCMJ it makes exceptions for such circumstances. I perused the code myself and found no such exception. Instead, everything i found indicted Hassan under military law, not civilian. I've submitted this continually, yet everyone seems hellbent on disputing something which is not of my creation.
Here's this from the 2012 UCMJ Manual for Courts Martial, appendix 3, january 22, 1985 DoD directive 5525.7 enclosing the verbatim text of the 1984 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND DEFENSE RELATING TO THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CRIMES


C) 2. CRIMES COMMITTED ON MILITARY INSTAL* LATIONS
a. Subject(s) can be Tried by Court-Martial or are Unknown
Crimes (other than those covered by paragraph C.1.) committed on a military installation will be investigated by the Department of Defense investigative agency concerned and, when committed by a person subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, prosecuted by the Military Department concerned.


The emphasis is mine, but it's on page 482 http://www.uscg.mil/legal/mj/MJ_Doc/mcm2012.pdf




It's the law--ucmj has jurisdiction--don't like it, think its necessary and proper to charge active service members as terrorists under certain conditions-- demand the law be changed. I'm not even saying I think the administration's actions are benign; I'm merely explaining why, legally, they have classified it the way they have. Sometimes the law fails, this may be such a case. Change the law then, don't just ignore it :dunno:

[jimnyc]

I wouldn't care as much what they classify it as - I just think the end line should be Hasan dying for his crimes.

[logroller]

I wouldn't care as much what they classify it as - I just think the end line should be Hasan dying for his crimes.
No doubt-- It's being tried as a capital offense. The issue seems to be victims benefits; in that the classification was not an act of war. If it were an act of war, however, it would fall under different rules-- those of war-- which hold entirely different and more extensive consideration, esp Geneva Convention, and it would be infinitely more difficult to charge him capitally. Its a tricky ordeal, legally speaking. Seems some survivors fund could more easily adopt some rule change than the DoD, but that doesn't have the political implications "workplace violence" does.

[logroller]

Bump

I dont dispute your logic. im saying its a matter of legal jurisdiction; show where in the UCMJ it makes exceptions for such circumstances. I perused the code myself and found no such exception. Instead, everything i found indicted Hassan under military law, not civilian. I've submitted this continually, yet everyone seems hellbent on disputing something which is not of my creation.
Here's this from the 2012 UCMJ Manual for Courts Martial, appendix 3, january 22, 1985 DoD directive 5525.7 enclosing the verbatim text of the 1984 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND DEFENSE RELATING TO THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CRIMES


C) 2. CRIMES COMMITTED ON MILITARY INSTAL* LATIONS
a. Subject(s) can be Tried by Court-Martial or are Unknown
Crimes (other than those covered by paragraph C.1.) committed on a military installation will be investigated by the Department of Defense investigative agency concerned and, when committed by a person subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, prosecuted by the Military Department concerned.


The emphasis is mine, but it's on page 482 http://www.uscg.mil/legal/mj/MJ_Doc/mcm2012.pdf




It's the law--ucmj has jurisdiction--don't like it, think its necessary and proper to charge active service members as terrorists under certain conditions-- demand the law be changed. I'm not even saying I think the administration's actions are benign; I'm merely explaining why, legally, they have classified it the way they have. Sometimes the law fails, this may be such a case. Change the law then, don't just ignore it :dunno:


How clever, first you declare you do not think that it was workplace violence then you declare they had "reasons" for declaring it so.
Cite those reasons then. And if they justify lying and shafting injured military and the families of those murdered perhaps you have a case. Otherwise what you put forth is its ok for the government to lie and abuse even its own soldiers and their families! Which is exactly what the government thinks too!
Its your position so citing the reasons should be a snap. I eagerly await you listing those reasons!
For being so eager to see the reasons, I'm surprised you haven't responded to the leading quote of mine...unless, of course, you have no challenge to it.