Comments on: Major Nidal Hasan Is Not A Terrorist

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:47:37 +0000

That would be too kind. I want them all to look like Chris Mathews.

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:44:19 +0000

with one of those sentences:

That the FBI was on to this evildoer and let him slip past their watch…

not necessarily that your statement incorrectly characterizes the reality of the situation. If you are “on to” an evildoer there is no allowing someone to slip past. Especially as the military can quickly locate almost anyone enlisted in the service. The appropriate call to the right person in the military and none of this would have happened. That makes this failure unforgivable.

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:36:57 +0000

boiling him in pig fat, whether under traitor, terrorist, or mass murder definitions doesn’t much matter to me. But that probably violates the “cruel and unusual” clause, so I will settle for hanging.

By: Read Chesterton in New Improved Jersey

Read Chesterton in New Improved Jersey — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:25:35 +0000

but if the label “terrorist” is not applied with gusto to the cowardly monster’s act I fear he will be turned into an Islamic American icon by the left – a new Mumia Abu Jamal cause celeb’ if you will. Do not underestimate the power of the media to successfully paint him as a victim.

By: Amy Miller

Amy Miller — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:54:16 +0000

The reason we have silly labels like “terrorist” and “war criminal” is so that we don’t screw up, apply the wrong standards, and end up wading through dismissed cases and procedural chaos. He’s not a terrorist, as per the statutory definition of “terrorist,” which is all that matters when it comes to prosecuting this monster. It doesn’t matter how you, I, or anyone else feels about it. Feelings are a nonissue. I promise you, we’ll be able to string this guy up by his thumbs without an ounce of emotional posturing about what he should be labeled.

The weapons he used are irrelevant. You can commit an act of terrorism with a knife if you’re so inclined. What matters is the man, the motivation, and the victim.

By: nayyer_ali

nayyer_ali — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:17:57 +0000

I think your definition is too rigid. A person in uniform can still commit an act of terrorism, if it is not done within the context of his military service (i.e. shooting civilians during a military operation intentionally). Also, the victims of a terrorist act do not have to be civilians. A broader definition would include non-combatants. For example a attacking a busload of new recruits being taken to a base for training. Or for that matter, the truck bombing of the marine base in Lebanon in 1982 is widely considered an act of terrorism and is often referred to as such. The key thing is the motivation, which is what the President was saying, correctly IMO. The JTTF may take jurisdiction of this case and Major Hasan may be charged in Federal Court with terrorism. On the other hand, the military could court-martial him. For those hoping for the death penalty, it is apparently much harder to carry out a death penalty in the military system than the Feds can.

By: Read Chesterton in New Improved Jersey

Read Chesterton in New Improved Jersey — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:04:36 +0000

which is, simply put, he is both.

I’m sure that the jurisdiction will fall under UCMJ. But given the military’s handling of him before he went all jihadist on them leaves one wondering whether they will have the will to prosecute him to the fullest extent. I think I’d prefer that the state of Texas have at him.

By: Socrates

Socrates — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:30:46 +0000

But in the end, which of us is worrying more about definitions, I who say he’s a war criminal, or you who say he’s a terrorist?

I’m certainly not going to the mat over his not being called a terrorist, even though I wrote the diary.

By: Read Chesterton in New Improved Jersey

Read Chesterton in New Improved Jersey — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:17:26 +0000

I simply don’t get the point of the legalese. An act of jihadist terrorism was committed. 13 people are dead. That the perpetrator’s US military status would prevent using the label “terrorist” seems silly to me. That the FBI was on to this evildoer and let him slip past their watch is more frightening to me than even knowing that there are threats like Hasan on the loose…

Here’s a question: If Hasan had used a bomb hidden on his person vice two pistols, would we be calling him officially a terrorist then? Why or why not?

By: Socrates

Socrates — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:03:16 +0000

which is awful.

Calling someone a traitor or a war criminal (or both) isn’t letting them off the hook.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:52:16 +0000

As such, he should be executed, revived, and executed again.

And may all his 72 virgins look like Helen Thomas.

-Dave

By: Tbone

Tbone — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:38:06 +0000

“…is this an individual who’s acting in this way or is it some larger set of actors? You know, what are the motivations? Those are all questions that I think we have to ask ourselves.”

He really is quite illiterate.

By: rbdwiggins

rbdwiggins — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:58:46 +0000

and the only thing that keeps Hasan from being legally classified as a terrorist is his military status. However, Hasan’s military status ensures that his actions satisfy the requirements of treason and justify the classification as traitor.

By: Common_Cents

Common_Cents — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:33:40 +0000

The all knowing Veteran John Kerry told us our military could be terrorists, remember?

By: rbdwiggins

rbdwiggins — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:24:23 +0000

and would convey martyrdom upon Hasan.

There is a specific reason Saddam Hussein was hanged by the neck until dead.

By: Amy Miller

Amy Miller — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:48:32 +0000

…when it ignores the obvious, the law, and things you can learn by reading.

By: Read Chesterton in New Improved Jersey

Read Chesterton in New Improved Jersey — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:23:10 +0000

By: Socrates

Socrates — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:04:11 +0000

He’s a war criminal, not a terrorist.

He’s also chargeable under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Millitary Justice (Murder).

Penalty: Death.

Too bad we can only kill him once.

By: TxTess

TxTess — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:15:40 +0000

that all the member of the firing squad will have bullets in their weapons.

By: Steph C

Steph C — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:10:44 +0000

Perhaps there is hope for you, yet.

Did I mention ‘slight’?