The Treason of Major Hasan
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
(article III, section 3, paragraph 1, Constitution of the United States of America).
On November 5th, 2009, US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist, committed treason against the United States of America, in the full sense of the Constitutional definition. Major Hasan -- who had openly stated before that he considered America the aggressor in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that he felt that his religious conscience precluded him from participating in a war against Iraqis who were only "trying to defend themselves" (despite the reality that Iraq has been self-governing since 2005, and that it is in fact the guerillas who are attacking Iraq) -- brought two pistols to Fort Hood, for some reason daring to defy the regulations against carrying weapons on base (Seriously! He could have gotten in real trouble for that!).
He then proceeded to shoot up the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where there were a large number of soldiers being ready for shipment to Iraq, where they were to fight against the enemies of America, Iraq and Civilization in general. Crying Allahu akbar! (God is great, the standard warcry of Terrorist scum and their brethren in the Religion of Peace), and thus identifying his status as a turncoat for the Terrorists and an enemy of America, Iraq and Civilization, he killed 12 and wounded 30 more soldiers. The soldiers were disarmed, as was almost everyone on the base, by the aforementioned regulation, in stubborn defiance of which Major Hasan's pistols were working just fine.
At this point, the heroic Sgt. Kim Munley, a member of Fort Hood's Police SWAT Team, leaped into the fray, in a blatant violation of shari'a. She and the traitor Hasan fired repeatedly and simultaneously, and both went down, ending the crisis.
This was quite an effective Terrorist strike on America by an agent of the enemy. Considering that the normal attrition rate on the battlefield is something like 20 to 1 in our favor, by killing 12 and wounding 31 (counting Sgt. Munley), Nidal Malik Hasan managed to achieve, for the loss of only 1 wounded (himself) something which would normally have cost roughly 940 Terrorist losses. Indeed, in the same sense as the actions of someone fighting for the Waffen-SS or Viet Cong could have been seen as "heroic," Major Hasan's act of treason was of truly "heroic" proportions.
Let me repeat the key line from that sentence:
This was quite an effective Terrorist strike on America by an agent of the enemy.
It was not a "tragedy" in the sense of someone going mad and randomly deciding to kill people. Major Hasan, a trained officer and pyschiatrist, did what he did in the deliberate and aforethought service of the ideology of Islamofascism, and he successfully struck through several weak points in the American military system. To wit:
(1) He took advantage of the culture of political correctness and Islam-appeasement which pervades our government, and even our Armed Forces, in that the many and explicit signs which he gave in advance of his contemplation of treason were ignored. This bears attention, and can best be illustrated by a comparison.
Imagine that, in 1944, a US Army Major Heinz Dorffman, whose parents came from Bavaria, was about to be shipped out to the fighting in Normandy. Suppose that he repeatedly and publicly stated that he felt it painful to his "German conscience" to wage war against the "Fatherland" which was "only trying to defend itself from Jewish aggression." Do you think that he'd be sent to the front? Or even allowed to remain a commissioned officer? Or even, for that matter, out of the stockade?
Why, in 2009, should we be willing to tolerate a US Army officer who claims that his "religious conscience" forbids him to fight against his "fellow Muslims" in a "war of aggression" against Iraq? Remember, he swore an oath to defend the United States of America -- there's no exception in that oath for "enemies who happen to belong to the same religion." Also remember that Iraq started the war in 2003 by violating the truce terms, and furthermore that the current Iraqi government is actually our ally!
(2) By attacking a troop processing center, he directly knocked out over 40 fresh troops. These are troops who will not be able to fight to defend Iraq from the Terrorists. What's more, he deprived the Army of their service for the whole tour of duty that they would have served, because he caught them going in. This was almost certainly intentional on his part -- after all, he could have shot anyone if he'd merely wanted to shoot "people" in general.
(3) He exploited a tremendous weakness in our basing system, and one of which his Virginia Tech background would have made him acutely aware -- the disarming of almost all troops on base, and the storage of the weapons and ammunition in places where they are not readily available. Unless this hole in our security is closed, this will be only the first of many such attacks.
(4) The commission of such a gross act of treachery by a field officer just made all American troops feel a bit less easy. The morale effect is all out of proportion to the actual casualties inflicted. As a military psychologist, this is something else of which he would be very aware.
This gets into why I hope that he is charged not merely with murder, but also with treason. The reason why is that it is very important that we face up to the reality of his treason, and its link to his religious faith and national background, because if we don't then there will be many more acts of treason from this particular quarter.
We need to start PROFILING. The reality of the world is that our enemies are not motivated randomly. They are disproportionately Muslim, and Arab. And when someone is not only an Arab Muslim but self-identifies as a "Palestinian," this should be raising all kinds of flags that he should be kept under special scrutiny.
It's not as if the traitor Hasan didn't give signs of his treason. He expressed his doubts about the war in public. He even posted to a jihadist website. Before his attack, he began giving away his personal possessions (rather than putting them in storage).
Why didn't the Army investigate? Probably because they knew that if they did, and he wasn't a traitor, he'd raise a stink about being "profiled."
Heck, the Muslim Brotherhood front organizations are already claiming that he's a "victim" and that the "real victims" are other Muslims in the military (they want to make sure that this won't be the last such attack, you see).
And there are actually people dumb enough to believe them.
This is a wake-up call. We need to get serious about our own security, we need to begin profiling, and if Arabs and Muslims don't like it, maybe they can do something to clean out the scum from their own communities, because it's the Terrorists who are giving them the PR problem.
We -- Americans -- need to look out for our own security primarily, and worry about hurt Muslim pride as a very distinctly secondary consideration.
(article III, section 3, paragraph 1, Constitution of the United States of America).
On November 5th, 2009, US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist, committed treason against the United States of America, in the full sense of the Constitutional definition. Major Hasan -- who had openly stated before that he considered America the aggressor in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that he felt that his religious conscience precluded him from participating in a war against Iraqis who were only "trying to defend themselves" (despite the reality that Iraq has been self-governing since 2005, and that it is in fact the guerillas who are attacking Iraq) -- brought two pistols to Fort Hood, for some reason daring to defy the regulations against carrying weapons on base (Seriously! He could have gotten in real trouble for that!).
He then proceeded to shoot up the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where there were a large number of soldiers being ready for shipment to Iraq, where they were to fight against the enemies of America, Iraq and Civilization in general. Crying Allahu akbar! (God is great, the standard warcry of Terrorist scum and their brethren in the Religion of Peace), and thus identifying his status as a turncoat for the Terrorists and an enemy of America, Iraq and Civilization, he killed 12 and wounded 30 more soldiers. The soldiers were disarmed, as was almost everyone on the base, by the aforementioned regulation, in stubborn defiance of which Major Hasan's pistols were working just fine.
At this point, the heroic Sgt. Kim Munley, a member of Fort Hood's Police SWAT Team, leaped into the fray, in a blatant violation of shari'a. She and the traitor Hasan fired repeatedly and simultaneously, and both went down, ending the crisis.
This was quite an effective Terrorist strike on America by an agent of the enemy. Considering that the normal attrition rate on the battlefield is something like 20 to 1 in our favor, by killing 12 and wounding 31 (counting Sgt. Munley), Nidal Malik Hasan managed to achieve, for the loss of only 1 wounded (himself) something which would normally have cost roughly 940 Terrorist losses. Indeed, in the same sense as the actions of someone fighting for the Waffen-SS or Viet Cong could have been seen as "heroic," Major Hasan's act of treason was of truly "heroic" proportions.
Let me repeat the key line from that sentence:
This was quite an effective Terrorist strike on America by an agent of the enemy.
It was not a "tragedy" in the sense of someone going mad and randomly deciding to kill people. Major Hasan, a trained officer and pyschiatrist, did what he did in the deliberate and aforethought service of the ideology of Islamofascism, and he successfully struck through several weak points in the American military system. To wit:
(1) He took advantage of the culture of political correctness and Islam-appeasement which pervades our government, and even our Armed Forces, in that the many and explicit signs which he gave in advance of his contemplation of treason were ignored. This bears attention, and can best be illustrated by a comparison.
Imagine that, in 1944, a US Army Major Heinz Dorffman, whose parents came from Bavaria, was about to be shipped out to the fighting in Normandy. Suppose that he repeatedly and publicly stated that he felt it painful to his "German conscience" to wage war against the "Fatherland" which was "only trying to defend itself from Jewish aggression." Do you think that he'd be sent to the front? Or even allowed to remain a commissioned officer? Or even, for that matter, out of the stockade?
Why, in 2009, should we be willing to tolerate a US Army officer who claims that his "religious conscience" forbids him to fight against his "fellow Muslims" in a "war of aggression" against Iraq? Remember, he swore an oath to defend the United States of America -- there's no exception in that oath for "enemies who happen to belong to the same religion." Also remember that Iraq started the war in 2003 by violating the truce terms, and furthermore that the current Iraqi government is actually our ally!
(2) By attacking a troop processing center, he directly knocked out over 40 fresh troops. These are troops who will not be able to fight to defend Iraq from the Terrorists. What's more, he deprived the Army of their service for the whole tour of duty that they would have served, because he caught them going in. This was almost certainly intentional on his part -- after all, he could have shot anyone if he'd merely wanted to shoot "people" in general.
(3) He exploited a tremendous weakness in our basing system, and one of which his Virginia Tech background would have made him acutely aware -- the disarming of almost all troops on base, and the storage of the weapons and ammunition in places where they are not readily available. Unless this hole in our security is closed, this will be only the first of many such attacks.
(4) The commission of such a gross act of treachery by a field officer just made all American troops feel a bit less easy. The morale effect is all out of proportion to the actual casualties inflicted. As a military psychologist, this is something else of which he would be very aware.
This gets into why I hope that he is charged not merely with murder, but also with treason. The reason why is that it is very important that we face up to the reality of his treason, and its link to his religious faith and national background, because if we don't then there will be many more acts of treason from this particular quarter.
We need to start PROFILING. The reality of the world is that our enemies are not motivated randomly. They are disproportionately Muslim, and Arab. And when someone is not only an Arab Muslim but self-identifies as a "Palestinian," this should be raising all kinds of flags that he should be kept under special scrutiny.
It's not as if the traitor Hasan didn't give signs of his treason. He expressed his doubts about the war in public. He even posted to a jihadist website. Before his attack, he began giving away his personal possessions (rather than putting them in storage).
Why didn't the Army investigate? Probably because they knew that if they did, and he wasn't a traitor, he'd raise a stink about being "profiled."
Heck, the Muslim Brotherhood front organizations are already claiming that he's a "victim" and that the "real victims" are other Muslims in the military (they want to make sure that this won't be the last such attack, you see).
And there are actually people dumb enough to believe them.
This is a wake-up call. We need to get serious about our own security, we need to begin profiling, and if Arabs and Muslims don't like it, maybe they can do something to clean out the scum from their own communities, because it's the Terrorists who are giving them the PR problem.
We -- Americans -- need to look out for our own security primarily, and worry about hurt Muslim pride as a very distinctly secondary consideration.