Defining Fort Hood Massacre properly
Ann Coulter recently published an article listing all the evidence that the Fort Hood Massacre committed by Nidal Hasan was a jihadi attack and taking the mainstream media to task for refusing to call it an act of terrorism:
It’s been weeks since eyewitnesses reported that Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar" before spraying Fort Hood with gunfire, killing 13 people.
Since then we also learned that Hasan gave a medical lecture on beheading infidels and pouring burning oil down their throats (unfortunately not covered under the Senate health care bill). Some wondered if perhaps a pattern was beginning to emerge but were promptly dismissed as racist cranks.
We also found out Hasan had business cards printed up with the jihadist abbreviation "SOA" for "Soldier of Allah." Was that enough to conclude that the shooting was an act of terrorism — or does somebody around here need to take another cultural sensitivity class?
And we know that Hasan had contacted several jihadist Web sites and that he had been exchanging e-mails with a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen. The FBI learned that last December, but the rest of us only found out about it a week ago.
Is it still too soon to come to the conclusion that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism?
Ms. Coulter is of course correct in pointing that one has to be willfully blind in order not to see the action of Nidal Hasan for what it is: an attack by an adherent to violent Islamist ideology on American soldiers. Any attempt to portray Hasan as some sort of a deranged individual is now ridiculous. He is no more deranged than the 9/11 hijackers flying planes into buildings or the ideology they all adhere to. I do, however, disagree with Ann Coulter and many others on the right in one thing: I would not call Hasan’s action as terrorism. Why? Well, because if the terrorism is defined as a deliberate attack against civilians in order to score political points, then this attack was not an act of terrorism. The targets of Hasan’s attack were our soldiers. Thus, this attack was an act of war, rather than terrorism. Nidal Hasan executed a surprise attack on our military, similar to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. This makes him an enemy combatant. The fact that he was wearing American uniform prior to the attack makes him an illegal combatant, the kinds of which were shot on the spot during World War 2. Finally, there is a "T" word that properly defines the actions of Major Nidal Malik Hasan: TREASON. Here is how Section 3 of Article 3 of the United States Constitution defines treason:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort (emphasis mine – Eric-Odessit). 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. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
If the action of US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan is not "levying War against" the United States, then I don’t know what is. And there are more than 2 witnesses to his action. The fact that he is charged merely with murder is a very sad thing. In my opinion, treason should definitely be among the charges against Hasan. Upon conviction he should face the firing squad, or perhaps even be hanged. There should be no lethal injection for him. Yes, I know that he will be dead either way, but symbolism is important for showing how serious we are in prosecuting the war to defend ourselves.
Powered by Qumana