Days have passed since the massacre at Fort Hood where 13 people lost their lives and 30 others were wounded. The Army has issued warnings about jumping to conclusions and has advised all to back off and allow them to do their own investigation. However, typically, politicians were beginning to weigh in on the topic over the weekend.
Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, was perhaps the most direct and vocal. He flat out called the attack terrorism. He is quoted in the NY Daily News:
Sen. Joe Lieberman called the Fort Hood massacre an act of “Islamist extremism” – even as top Army brass warned Sunday against guessing at a motive, fearing backlash against Muslim soldiers.
“There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act,” Lieberman (I-Conn) told Fox News on Sunday.
“If the reports that we’re receiving of various statements he made, acts he took are valid, he had turned to Islamist extremism.”
Experts in law enforcement and in the mental health field sift through the clues left after the massacre. They seem less willing to commit to definitive answers. People have begun to compare this rampage to the horrible massacre of students at Virginia Tech in spring of 2007.
Many people are beginning to form their own conclusions. What constitutes terrorism? Do we need government permission to call an act terrorism? Certainly when a gunman attacks people who are just sitting ducks, that is terrorism, regardless of motivation. Who dropped the ball? Didn’t the Army have strong warnings that this killer was unstable, was a bad apple, or whatever we want to call it. Why wasn’t he removed from where he could harm others? Should he have been discharged? Does that not send a bad message to others about fulfilling commitment? After all, much was invested in Major Hasan’s medical training.
Americans will be grappling with these and many other questions as more and more clues are uncovered from this horrible massacre.
If the planes had only hit the Pentagon on 9-11 would it not have been terrorism?
Will there be a new paradigm each time there is a new terrorist attack, thus creating a new definition of terrorism?
Cargo, can it be both terrorism and treason?
The gurus on TV seem to be leading the the T word.
The term “terrorism” is defined in Title 22 of the U.S. code to mean premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience ( http://www.history.navy.mil/library/guides/terrorism.htm#definition ).
Even though the attack took place on a military base, it was launched against noncombatants. The definition above does not require the attack to be mounted by a terrorist group — i.e. lone wolf attacks are still considered terrorism. Given the accumulating evidence that Hasan was contacting jihadist groups (or attempting to), it seems clear that his was an act of terrorism.
In my opinion, terrorism may be considered treason if the act is conducted against one’s own country.
I don’t have one problem in the world calling the Fort Hood Massacre terrorism. I didn’t have any problem calling what John Muhammad did terrorism either.
As the day wore on, I was using the T word left and right. I just understand why those representing the government cannot do it.
Cargosquid, I think your dictionary definition of terrorism is in error. Organized terrorists often attack individual military and police targets for the exact same reasons cited in your dictionary for the killing of civilians. The idea is to choose a suitably representative target, kill to make a point, garner the resultant publicity for the cause, and send a general warning of more to come if that original point is not accepted and acted upon. In fact, to kill a military man or a policeman is often preferable to taking out civilians since that speaks volumes about the power and daring of the attacking group and really scares the living Hell out of everyone concerned. If the protectors can’t protect themselves, who can?!!
It has been my personal experience that few prosecutors and judges differentiate between civilian and military or police victims when it comes to going after organized terrorists. They are all victims of murder during the commission of a terrorist act. I know we didn’t differentiate. We were the guys and gals who had to track the killers down. The victims included, inter alia, American military personnel and foreign police officers who had absolutely no personal connection in any way to their attackers. Their only sins in most of the cases were their uniforms and often their nationality. Civilian, military, or police, to us they were all victims of terrorism. In almost all the cases, a hot war or the absence thereof had no legal bearing whatsoever. The war was between us and the terrorists.
I think, however, that you are correct in pointing out that the Hasan case could become a bit muddled definition-wise. I am only guessing here, but it seems to me that much might depend on whether or not you can demonstrate a solid connection between Hasan and organized terrorism, specifically that jihadist imam in Yemen and possibly al-Qaeda. If not, I don’t know how it would play out. It is further complicated to my way of thinking by the fact that Hasan is, indeed, a member of the same military organization as most of his victims. However, how a prosecutor would ever be able to work in the idea of “treason” is beyond me. My job was always to catch ’em and pony up the physical and/or witness evidence, not try them in court. Thank God!!
A prosecutor can add treason in by looking at his actions. Was he a member of the Army? Yes. Are we at war with jihadists? Yes. Did this soldier express support for the jihadist movement? Possibly. Did he commit actions that place him in the enemy camp and affect the war effort? Most definitely. That’s why I believe that, technically, he should not be considered a “terrorist.” He should be considered a traitor and enemy combatant. He is no different than Benedict Arnold. He committed a terror act but I did not want to “classify” him strictly as a terrorist. I believe that those that attack military units/bases should not be considered terrorists. They are irregular combatants. Terrorists TARGET civilians for political purposes. Irregular combatants attack military forces AND civilian targets. Warfare does use terror, but, it it is not its sole weapon. And yes, I know I might be splitting hairs. Your mileage may vary. Your interpretation may be different. I was just explaining my thinking.
Either way, convict him of treason. If THIS is not treason, then take it off the books.
Also let TEXAS convict him of murder so that we can use ol’Sparky instead of lethal injection.
By the way, here is Austin Bay of Strategy Page for a similar take.
http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20091110222819.aspx
Interesting points Cargo, I never looked at it like that…
If the term ‘terrorist’ has been weaked then so has ‘traitor.’
I am not sure it is right for us to feel so disappointed when we can’t kill people the way we want to. I have to fight that a lot.