Minor corrections: (1) Military executions are now by lethal injection. (2) Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and this act likely (depending on Hassan's actual connections to Al Qaeda) doesn't match it. (3) Hassan will be tried for murder (I am not sure whether in civilian or military court, and given the death of a civilian, conceivably both on separate charges), and he probably will get the death penalty.

(1) Pity. But ok.

(2) Disagree. Precisely what element of "levying war" is missing here?

"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. 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."

(3) It will be some satisfaction if he is executed, but not whole satisfaction. What he did is not mere murder; it goes substantially beyond, and the first step to dealing with it is recognizing that.

It's possible that Hassan's acts could be construed as levying war, but I don't think so unless he was acting in concert with Al Qaeda. I don't think commonality of purpose would suffice. (IANAL.) And a conversation with a radical Imam doesn't seem quite like adhering to the enemy: that would be more like going, post 9/11, to an AQ training camp.

FWIW, lethal injection may be more painful than the firing squad, just less messy.

"Uncovering and dismissing Muslim Soldiers who veer into Extremism"

The questions posed by Ricks are good questions. As to the question posed by Armed Liberal, whether we can tell the difference between a devout, perhaphs conflicted, Muslim who nevertheless does an honorable job for our country, and a Major Hasan, the answer is no, we can't.

There are apparently somewhere between 4,000 to 15,000 Muslims serving in the armed forces. Who would lead a purge of these men and women to "reassure" Christians and Jews and atheists in the army that they are safe from terrorists at home? What should they look for to identify such "Islamists?" Is there a difference between a "terrorist" and an "Islamist?" If so, what is it and who will judge? Is someone an "Islamist" because they have typed Osama Bin Laden in their web browser? Should all Muslims in the armed forces have their personal computers monitored and phones tapped? Is someone an "Islamist" because they tell someone that they are a Muslim first, and an American second? Would this also disqualify anyone who considers himself a Christian first and an American second?

All purges are counter productive and unjust. The profile in the New York Times from November 8 that Ricks links to further indicates how hard it would be, even in the case of Hasan, to identify a terrorist in advance. The portrait is not of someone about whom you could easily tell in advance that he would do such a terrible thing.

Should one be careful and root out problem personnel? Of course. Should the army be extra sensitive to look for signs of emotional disturbance in someone in Maj. Hasan's predicament? Of course. Should we embark on a purge of Muslims in the U.S. armed forces? No.

Ronald Nikles: sorry, that's just stupid.

There's no way to tell the difference between a traitor like Hassan and a loyal Muslim? Really? Here's a clue: the guy attempts to make contact with al-Qaeda and imams allied to it, rants at his colleagues, and uses a formal medical lecture at Walter Reed to deliver a rant to his colleagues on the Koran, with the conclusion "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

But yeah, I'm sure any Muslim would do that. Of course. Riiiight.

To be clear - that answer is no, they wouldn't and they don't. Guys who do the things Hassan did should have been booted long before he was given the opportunity to kill people, as well as hurt people in his daily performance.

But he wasn't booted, and Ricks is right to ask why. So, too, is every outside observer. Your last paragraph may be obvious to you, but it clearly was not obvious to the Army, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. And your borderline dishonest rant about "purges" is a good illustration of why we are having it.

I don't believe in purges, but I also don't believe everybody has to be in the armed forces.

If your big problem is Anarchist terror, Anarchists don't belong in the armed forces. If your big problem is Communist terror, Communists don't belong in the armed forces. If your big problem is Islamic terror, Muslims don't belong in the armed forces. And do on.

This is not to denigrate or attack individuals. That would be rude and wrong. I've known a bunch of Communists (long ago), who in some cases were dear people who loved Stalin more than their own mothers, but who never let their desire for a people's state and purges for class enemies make them personally rude. I'm sure they would have been OK in the army, because they were prudent in their understanding of their self-interest, and moderate by temperament.

But I wouldn't want an army of them. Or an army with any of them. Constant government vigilance against threats of anti-communist prejudice, tireless official work to forestall a non-existent anti-communist "backlash", pressures to suppress bigotry against Communists (the better to accommodate mass Communist immigration), loud reminders of our heroic Communists in uniform proudly serving, and so on would not have made us safer, strengthened our armed forces, or done anything but undermine us.

Over time, you can bring about an improvement in your armed forces without purges and attacks on individuals. Just don't hire the wrong people.

And if you have, move them away from the wrong places. They can continue to get paid, and they'll deserve the moral standing of having proudly, loyally and honorably served. Just don't let them get where they shouldn't be.

Large swathes of people in America are losing confidence that this process works, even in the Army, which clearly failed in its moral duty to protect its soldiers.

I only agree with the second half of that sentence. Over time, I haven't seen empirical evidence of growing public caution. On the contrary, the election of Barack Obama tells me that a man can have very questionable friends and still be considered ideal leadership material. I don't think the public is "filtering" or demanding that the state "filters".

Those failures push the default position - one of firewalling a religion whose current links to ubiquitous, organized violence around the world are consistent, widespread, and undeniable.

That's my position. (Except that experience has taught me that when it comes to the facts of Islam's innate aggressiveness, there is no such thing as "undeniable". And when you are discussing the facts of the Holocaust, again, if you are dealing with neo-Nazis or Muslims, nothing is "undeniable".)

It's not a default position. In the arena of public opinion, the big media, with general consent, has defined this as a reprehensible position, or at best an eccentric position.

There is no backlash, growing or otherwise.

There was no "backlash" either (till far, far too late) when (simplified version), the Roman state admitted large numbers of barbarians inside its borders and in the army. What happened was a great "going into the West".

In a state that's making itself multicultural, the core ethnic / "old settler" population, overly committed to a state that is no longer committed to it, and lacking loyal leaders or a specific lobby, is exquisitely vulnerable, and can face a bleak future.

Katzman #5:

David Blue would bar all Muslims from the Armed Forces at this time. Armed Liberal would "ruthlessly seek out and stamp out Islamist believers who wear our uniform" (I'm not sure he means it quite the way it sounds here--but others are apt to run with it) and Katzman believes it's an easy task to identify someone who will do an act like Hasan's in avance. However, there is nothing self-evidently extremist about the power point slides reported on in the Washington Post article that Katzman points to for his proposition. The point of my post #4 is that because we actually cannot identify in advance, except rarely by chance, that someone will do something crazy, any attempt to identify disloyalty in a suspect group is pretty much destined to result in widesread prejudice, error, and injustice.

By way of handy example, Katzman #5 strongly misrepresents the evidence he and the original link have pointed to. Why does he (with great certainty) say that Hasan delivered a "rant" to his colleagues at Walter Reed concluding with "We love death more than you love life." That is very misleading because the article appears to talk about a fairly dispassionate power point presentation on Islam in context of this war on terror, and the concluding slide is a common slogan we've now heard for the past few years--there is no indication that Hasan adopted this statement as his own in the Walter Reed presentation, much less that this was the conclusion of a rant.

Here's what the Post said:

He stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by The Washington Post.

When times get tough you can fan the flames of prejudice and rumor or stand on the side of the constitution and suspect minorities. There are plenty of folks doing the former, I'll take my stand with the latter.

Chronic and pervasive Islamic probing should be a problem for those who say it's easy to sort out Muslims who will one day walk the walk from those who are merely committed to the religion that they or others will use to justify practical action.

One form of Islamic probing is "flying Imams" provocations, and another (related) form is the perpetual Islamic wail of feared victimization or "backlash". Muslims do things that involve very little risk for them as individuals, but that pleasantly satisfy Islam's call to strike terror into the hearts of unbelievers. When non-Muslims react in self-preservation, as with the flying Imams, they get smacked down. (And, just as "friendly" artillery that isn't is highly demoralizing in hot war, getting leaned on by a "friendly" state that is neutral or really in favor of protected minorities is highly demoralizing in a "creeping" war.) When non-Muslims give up and act like sheep, this is the road that leads to the easy hijacks of the 11th of September, 2001.

Probing does not mean someone is going to take part in terror attacks. It's more likely to mean they already know what lawyer they'll call and how they'll cash in if anyone calls them on what they're doing.

Roland, the central point of the WaPost article was that Hasan was expected to give a presentation on some medical issue as part of an ongoing series, and chose instead to give what was basically a treatise on Islam and the military.

If I was assigned at work to give a presentation on quarterly earnings, and instead did one on how the corporate atmosphere could be oppressive to devout Christians, I would be regarded as something of a religious nut and at least somewhat unstable, and rightly so. It's fairly clear from the article that the reaction to his presentation was mostly "WTF was THAT?"

It isn't calling for a witchhunt to conclude that there were warning bells going off about this guy for a while, but nothing was done about it, and to speculate about how the process can be improved so this doesn't repeat itself.

On Friday (home sick), I listened to somebody describing watching Hassan's presentation and they were certainly troubled, but weren't sure whether he was describing his own views or describing the views of some Muslims.

I think a question that needs to be asked to people now standing in front of the mike and suggesting that they knew something like this was going to happen, is whether they did something about it? Did they report it? Listening on Friday, I heard some people who were troubled, but tolerant. They weren't going to narc on someone for having a different point of view on things, or someone they didn't know well enough to understand where they are coming from.

By their deeds you shall know them. I think we can beat ourselves up too much about what we should have known from the pieces that are now being assembled. If it turns out he was trying to communicate with al Qaeda, I'll revise my views.

I have little doubt that Hassan will be tried by military tribunal. It seems to me that there will be several grounds to invoke the death penalty, including killing someone in an attempt to avoid hazardous duty. I almost get the impression that some talking heads (Chris Matthews) think that Hassan is kind of like a draft dodger gone bad. Even under such "mitigation," he's death approved.

Tagryn #10

Walter Reed deals with the wounded vets from this war. For a senior-year psychiatric resident to make a presentation on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan does not sound nuts or off topic.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan is reported to have said in the presentation. What is strange about that? The Post continues:

The title of Hasan's PowerPoint presentation was "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." It consisted of 50 slides. In one slide, Hasan described the presentation's objectives as identifying "what the Koran inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military." He also sought to "describe the nature of the religious conflicts that Muslims" who serve in the U.S. military may have and to persuade the Army to identify these individuals.
Other slides delved into the history of Islam, its tenets, statistics about the number of Muslims in the military, and explanations of "offensive jihad," or holy war.
Another slide suggested ways to draw out Muslim troops: "It must be hard for you to balance Islamic beliefs that might be conflicting with current war; feelings of guilt; Is it what you expected."

None of this sounds extreme, irrational or "WTF." Apparently, if typical procedures were followed, his presentation was vetted and did not come out of the blue.

Hasan's presentation lasted about an hour. It is unclear whether he read out loud every point on each slide. If typical procedures were followed, his adviser would have supervised the development of his project, said people familiar with the practice."

According to the NY Times profile Hasan was successful in his educatoin and training:

Major Hasan was born in Arlington, Va., on Sept. 8, 1970. His parents, Palestinians who had immigrated from the West Bank in the 1960s, moved the family to Roanoke when he was a youth. . . .

Major Hasan was the oldest of three boys, all of whom helped in the family businesses before going off to college and professional schools. Major Hasan graduated with honors from Virginia Tech in biochemistry in 1995. . . .

Against the wishes of his parents, relatives said, Major Hasan enlisted in the Army after graduating from college and entered an officer basic training program at Fort Sam Houston, Tex. He was commissioned in 1997 and went to medical school at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., a selective and tuition-free program.

After graduating in 2003, he did his internship and residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and then completed a two-year fellowship in preventive and disaster psychiatry, earning a master’s degree in public health. . . .

In May, after completing the fellowship, he was promoted to major, and two months later he was transferred to Fort Hood, the Army’s largest post.

Nothing troubling or alarming there.

Here are the signs of trouble, but think about it--up until last week, is it trouble that is out of the ordinary, trouble that would justify destroying someone's career?

Around 2004, Major Hasan started feeling disgruntled about the Army, relatives said. He described anti-Muslim harassment and sought legal advice, possibly from an Army lawyer, about getting a discharge.

During his years in Washington, Major Hasan turned increasingly toward Islam, relatives and classmates said. In part, he was seeking solace after the death of his parents, in 1998 and 2001. . .

Mr. Hamad, the uncle, said Major Hasan took the death of his parents hard, isolating himself and delving into books on Islam rather than socializing. “But this was a few years ago, and I thought he had coped with it,” Mr. Hamad said.

. . .Though Major Hasan told his cousins that he planned to marry sometime this year, he was not known to have ever had a girlfriend, relatives said.

It also appears he gradually became an anti-war activist, and more and more outspoken about it:

During his time at Walter Reed and the Uniformed Services University, Major Hasan also became increasingly vocal in his opposition to the wars. He knew much about the harsh realities of combat from having counseled returning soldiers, and he was deeply concerned about having to deploy. But over the past five years, he also began openly opposing the wars on religious grounds.

A former classmate in the master’s degree program said Major Hasan gave a PowerPoint presentation about a year ago in an environmental health seminar titled “Why the War on Terror Is a War on Islam.” He did not socialize with his classmates, other than to argue in the hallways on why the wars were wrong.

The former classmate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of working for the military and not being authorized to speak publicly, said that some students complained to their professors about Major Hasan, but that no action had been taken. “It didn’t cross my mind that he was dangerous,” the former classmate said. “He’s a chubby, bald guy. He wasn’t threatening.

Dr. Aaron Haney, who was a year ahead of Major Hasan in the residency program, said there were many people at Walter Reed who expressed opposition to the wars. He also said he had witnessed anti-Muslim or anti-Arab sentiments expressed by soldiers at Fort Campbell, Ky., where Dr. Haney trained before he deployed.

One of Major Hasan’s supervisors, Dr. Thomas Grieger, said Major Hasan had difficulties while at Walter Reed that required counseling. But Dr. Grieger said such counseling was not uncommon and told CNN that Major Hasan had “responded to the supervision that he received.”

“He swore an oath of loyalty to the military,” Dr. Grieger told The Associated Press. “I didn’t hear anything contrary to those oaths.”

Maybe someone, somwewhere, should have seen it coming, but in what I've read so far, it's not at all clear that this is so, or what should have been done differently.

Tagryn #10

Walter Reed deals with the wounded vets from this war. For a senior-year psychiatric resident to make a presentation on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan does not sound nuts or off topic.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan is reported to have said in the presentation. What is strange about that? The Post continues:

The title of Hasan's PowerPoint presentation was "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." It consisted of 50 slides. In one slide, Hasan described the presentation's objectives as identifying "what the Koran inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military." He also sought to "describe the nature of the religious conflicts that Muslims" who serve in the U.S. military may have and to persuade the Army to identify these individuals.
Other slides delved into the history of Islam, its tenets, statistics about the number of Muslims in the military, and explanations of "offensive jihad," or holy war.
Another slide suggested ways to draw out Muslim troops: "It must be hard for you to balance Islamic beliefs that might be conflicting with current war; feelings of guilt; Is it what you expected."

None of this sounds extreme, irrational or "WTF." Apparently, if typical procedures were followed, his presentation was vetted and did not come out of the blue.

Hasan's presentation lasted about an hour. It is unclear whether he read out loud every point on each slide. If typical procedures were followed, his adviser would have supervised the development of his project, said people familiar with the practice."

According to the NY Times profile Hasan was successful in his educatoin and training:

Major Hasan was born in Arlington, Va., on Sept. 8, 1970. His parents, Palestinians who had immigrated from the West Bank in the 1960s, moved the family to Roanoke when he was a youth. . . .

Major Hasan was the oldest of three boys, all of whom helped in the family businesses before going off to college and professional schools. Major Hasan graduated with honors from Virginia Tech in biochemistry in 1995. . . .

Against the wishes of his parents, relatives said, Major Hasan enlisted in the Army after graduating from college and entered an officer basic training program at Fort Sam Houston, Tex. He was commissioned in 1997 and went to medical school at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., a selective and tuition-free program.

After graduating in 2003, he did his internship and residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and then completed a two-year fellowship in preventive and disaster psychiatry, earning a master’s degree in public health. . . .

In May, after completing the fellowship, he was promoted to major, and two months later he was transferred to Fort Hood, the Army’s largest post.

Nothing troubling or alarming there.

Here are the signs of trouble, but think about it--up until last week, is it trouble that is out of the ordinary, trouble that would justify destroying someone's career?

Around 2004, Major Hasan started feeling disgruntled about the Army, relatives said. He described anti-Muslim harassment and sought legal advice, possibly from an Army lawyer, about getting a discharge.

During his years in Washington, Major Hasan turned increasingly toward Islam, relatives and classmates said. In part, he was seeking solace after the death of his parents, in 1998 and 2001. . .

Mr. Hamad, the uncle, said Major Hasan took the death of his parents hard, isolating himself and delving into books on Islam rather than socializing. “But this was a few years ago, and I thought he had coped with it,” Mr. Hamad said.

. . .Though Major Hasan told his cousins that he planned to marry sometime this year, he was not known to have ever had a girlfriend, relatives said.

It also appears he gradually became an anti-war activist, and more and more outspoken about it:

During his time at Walter Reed and the Uniformed Services University, Major Hasan also became increasingly vocal in his opposition to the wars. He knew much about the harsh realities of combat from having counseled returning soldiers, and he was deeply concerned about having to deploy. But over the past five years, he also began openly opposing the wars on religious grounds.

A former classmate in the master’s degree program said Major Hasan gave a PowerPoint presentation about a year ago in an environmental health seminar titled “Why the War on Terror Is a War on Islam.” He did not socialize with his classmates, other than to argue in the hallways on why the wars were wrong.

The former classmate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of working for the military and not being authorized to speak publicly, said that some students complained to their professors about Major Hasan, but that no action had been taken. “It didn’t cross my mind that he was dangerous,” the former classmate said. “He’s a chubby, bald guy. He wasn’t threatening.

Dr. Aaron Haney, who was a year ahead of Major Hasan in the residency program, said there were many people at Walter Reed who expressed opposition to the wars. He also said he had witnessed anti-Muslim or anti-Arab sentiments expressed by soldiers at Fort Campbell, Ky., where Dr. Haney trained before he deployed.

One of Major Hasan’s supervisors, Dr. Thomas Grieger, said Major Hasan had difficulties while at Walter Reed that required counseling. But Dr. Grieger said such counseling was not uncommon and told CNN that Major Hasan had “responded to the supervision that he received.”

“He swore an oath of loyalty to the military,” Dr. Grieger told The Associated Press. “I didn’t hear anything contrary to those oaths.”

Maybe someone, somwewhere, should have seen it coming, but in what I've read so far, it's not at all clear that this is so, or what should have been done differently.

This is not an individual problem. It's a clash of systems, and the appropriate solutions would be at system level.

At minimum, there should be a conscience opt out provision for Muslims, without prejudice to their careers.

For those who are trying to portray Nidal Malik Hasan as some sort of "sicko," rather than as a devout and committed Muslim who took brave and decisive action based on clear Islamic principles and laws, think about this. Nidal Malik Hasan obviously placed Allah above the lives and health of non-Muslim soldiers. But General George Casey also has a "god" that he placed above their lives and health: "Diversity". He said that it would be a greater tragedy (than the slaughter that had taken place at Fort Hood) if "diversity" was to become a "casualty". Both men had a sacred value, or in a hostile telling of the story a fantasy, that they think is more precious than anybody Nidal Malik Hasan shot, or than everybody that Nidal Malik Hasan shot, and as far as I can see everybody in future who might be made an additional human sacrifice to Diversity or Allah.

Neither man is inhumanly cold. They acted on their principles, which everybody does. It happens that on this occasion, General George Casey served his god without bloody overt action, while Nidal Malik Hasan (link) was caught in a moral conflict that called for force. (One way or another, he was going to war, but against who?) That doesn't mean either man was better than the other, or saner than the other.

Nidal Malik Hasan probably looked forward to the luridly described (and highly erotic) delights of Muslim Paradise, and feared the even more vividly described, sadistic and highly physical torments of HELL if he chose wrong. That's the conflict he pointed to. General George Casey seems to be looking forward to the continuation of his career. Which is better? In the short run, General George Casey's motivation is more normal, but we will all have to face death in the long run, and decide what we believe about ultimate things.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan seems to have thought his non-Muslim comrades in arms were bigots who were keen to bully him even though as a major he outranked at least 90% of them and was also a doctor and had the Diversity whip over them. General George Casey seems to think something similar: the real problem for him, as for everybody else doing the big clamp-down on the obvious truth, is the (unreal) threat of "backlash" and bigotry. I don't know which man is more unreasonable. I know which one is higher ranked and has less excuse for his attitudes.

Roland, you're missing what to me was the key paragraph of the article, that his presentation was clearly seen as coming out of the blue:

"It was really strange," said one staff member who attended the presentation and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the investigation of Hasan. "The senior doctors looked really upset" at the end. These medical presentations occurred each Wednesday afternoon, and other students had lectured on new medications and treatment of specific mental illnesses.

I think his attempts to contact al-Qaeda operatives were much more of a red flag that should have been picked up than this; the presentation just fits into a larger string that has been identified after-the-fact.

Intelligence seems to be explaining that Hasan's attempts to contact Awalaki were determined to be for educational purposes, so they let the matter drop. But they've also emphasized that Hasan was not a target of their investigation.

I suspect what we'll find is that this information was part of foreign intelligence gathering that was not intended to necessarily pick-up U.S. citizen communications. They may have been under certain constraints in the use of such information without a FISA warrant. Just speculation on my part.

As an aside, some people have referred to the attack as terrorism. It is not. It is a military attack on a military target, by an American citizen. The term for that is treason.

I agree with that completely. The closest historical precedent were the san patricios, during the Mexican-American War. These were Catholics, primarily Irish, who deserted the US army and joined the St. Patrick's Brigade to fight for the opposing side. They felt the war was wrong, were sympathetic to their co-religionist, and the Irish in particular felt that Americans were doing to Mexico what the British had been doing to Ireland. Most Irish and Catholic Americans stayed loyal and they were disgusted with the treaitors. Some of the heaviest fighting of the war involved the san patricios who no doubt knew what would happen if captured. Many were hung, watching the American flag rise over captured forts.

(In response to the desertion, the U.S. Army for the first time appointed priests as chaplains, one of whom died in the war.)

Hasan was clearly troubled by the war, felt sympathy for fellow Islamicists fighting the U.S., and saw the U.S. as playing the role of Israel against Palestine. This is an old story, repeated with Benedict Arnold in the Revolution and certain German-Americans and Japanese-Americans during WWII.

The closest historical precedent were the san patricios, during the Mexican-American War.

That's a very interesting parallel. Consider the fact that in 1846 the enlisted ranks of the regular US Army were dominated by immigrants, who were heavily Catholic. Even more numerous than the Irish were Catholics from Germany, Poland, and eastern Europe. They formed a far larger proportion of the regular army than Muslims currently do. And there was indeed concern that these soldiers might not be reliable in a fight against Mexican co-religionists.

As you pointed out only a small minority of them proved unreliable. In fact, regular troops massively out-performed native-born volunteer troops in the field.

It probably helped that Mexican Catholicism was very strange to European Catholics, who found it as alien as their Protestant officers did.

Glen, I have my books at home right now, but IIRC about 300 Catholics (primarily Irish, some German) defected and took up arms out of an Army that was about 50% immigrants, who would at that point in time presumably be mostly Catholic.

And it's probably also worth mentioning that the war was preceded by anti-immigrant riots and arson in many Northern cities, a fact exploited by Mexican propagandists.

Does anyone have a list of the ranks of all the people Nidal Hasan shot, and also, ideally, what they had suffered in terms of combat and tours?

In his character, Nidal Hasan is simply a hard line Muslim. There are many like him. But he was super-empowered in American society as a "diversity" aristocrat, and in effect this aristocrat went on a peasant shoot.

I would like to see how many of the people he gunned down were his social inferiors, measured by rank, and what they had endured, compared to him.

Nikles again willfully misrepresents my position.

" Katzman believes it's an easy task to identify someone who will do an act like Hasan's in avance. "

No. Katzman believes that individuals who believe in shari'a law or express Islamist sentiments do not belong in the uniform of the United States, just as individuals who express pro-Nazi sentiments do not belong in the armed forces of the United States.

The reasons are both moral and practical. For one, it is not possible to believe in shari'a law, and fulfill an oath to defend and uphold the US constitution.

Where I differ from David is that it is possible to be a believing Muslim, or Catholic, or evangelical Christian, pagan, etc. without conflict. Once the line crosses to advocacy of shari'a law, however, the oath has been betrayed.

On a practical level and a different topic, Islamist sentiments, which is to say political Islam, or solidarity with Islam above country, is a natural security risk, and one that also violates basic oaths of duty to the military and colleagues.

Individuals who placed communist parties (which took their direction from foreign nations) were properly weeded out during the Cold War. The same reasons apply here.

Hassan exhibited a number of warning flags that should not have been tolerated, and Ricks is right to be asking what he's asking. I'll repeat that Nikles' reaction is why we're having this conversation, and why a lot of families are mourning their dead right now.

David Blue -

Here is a brief list - 8 enlisted personnel, 4 officers, one civilian. It also lists the wounded, and note that some of the survivors were hit by as many as 6 bullets.

The dead include three women and an unborn baby. That probably earns you extra points with the dark and hungry god.

BTW, the particular heinousness of an officer murdering enlisted personnel is something that I have not seen commented upon. That betrayal is an extra layer of evil all by itself, apart from murder and treason. Add the fact that he was a medical officer, and he deserves to hang four times.

Correction - make that 4 times 12.

Hell, a California judge would almost give him jail time for what he did.

This is treason.

Well, I sure feel a whole lot better knowing what it really is. How to define it. What it ain't.

(Wouldn't want to get the terminology wrong, here, and look like a hick.)

So how about this?

Is it "treason" or "murder" or "terrorism" or "dissent" or "resistance" or "freedom of speech"? Just a plain old "act of conscience"?

Just wondering. (Wouldn't want to get my terminology wrong now.)

Barry - It's pretty easy, actually - it's freedom of speech. If an American citizen were to act upon it, then it would be treason. If a foreign national were to act upon it, then it's an act of war.

Joe Katzman #23.

Joe, your original post states

"It is not difficult to tell the difference between a believing Muslim, many of whom have served and continue to serve in the armed forces, and an advocate of shari'a, or sympathist with jihad.

I have understood you to argue that Hasan should have been kicked out by the army long ago because people should have seen it coming. In #5 you said:

"Guys who do the things Hassan did should have been booted long before he was given the opportunity to kill people, as well as hurt people in his daily performance."

You also suggest that the reason "guys who do the things Hasan did" are allowed to remain in the military is because of political correctness.

I don't doubt that there may have been warning signs that should have been picked up with Hasan and that these should have been dealt with. It seems probable mistakes were made. I've indicated that I agree Ricks is asking the right questions. There is no "political correctness" that would dictate you don't deal with Hasan, or anyone else, who is recognized to be a danger to others. That's a red herring.

I presume that Hasan was not dealt with, despite the stuff coming out about people having serious misgivings about him, because it is in fact tough to tell who is a danger, and who is not. Did someone in postion to make a decision make a mistake in not acting in this case. Maybe. That will depend a lot on the specifics, and it's going to be difficult to judge from newsreports.

It's not clear what you think should be done differently about other Muslims serving in the army who have not done anything wrong. Are you suggesting, for example, that everyone expressing an interest in Shari'a law be discharged? Why is it differnt to adhere to Shari'a law than adhering to Talmudic law in your personal life? I've no knowledge about Shari'a law, but I believe it allows for a range of interpretations, just like Talmudic law does. I suspect that when push comes to shove we would both agree that in all personnel mattters you have to look at each case individually and consider all the evidence very carefully.

In the way you have expressed your posts above, I believe you are treading roughly on subtle ground.

The fact is, Hasan was not dealt with. You can say "we need to look at each case individually and consider all the evidence very carefully," but it's been established that his case was looked at and his behavior had set off warning signs all over the place.

But something prevented any of those warning signs from being acted upon. Certainly some of it was doubt - it's a terrible thing to go to someone and say "we can no longer trust you with the safety of your fellow soldiers," after all.

But, as has been noted repeatedly, we did just that during the Cold War. If you had links to Communist political movements, the military didn't want you, even if you were likely to be a completely dedicated soldier. But we're not doing that with respect to Islam now. We enjoy the benefits of the service of many dedicated individuals who just happen to have a different religion, but we also suffer from attacks like this.

Is it so much of a problem to say "we should not include people in the military who can describe the enemy as 'we'?"

Backlash and prejudice from an event like this is understandable and real. I assume there is no disagreement that prejudice and backlash are to be avoided.

The logical extreme of what Avatar alludes to in #31 and what David Blue has advocated is what we did with the Japanese in World War II. That reaction was not true to what this country stands for, and it was unjust. Korematsu remains a black mark on the history of the Supreme Court.

Just what is your interest in soft peddling this attack, Nikles? Or for that matter, in smearing those who are concerned that our murdered troops were let down by their superiors and nation?

That seems to be what you're attempting: Implying without saying so that these concerns are 'backlash and prejudice'. Or saying in so many words that we're on the road to putting Muslims in concentration camps. Here I thought we were talking about expelling visible Islamist extremists from the armed forces. Why is it that you CAIR so much?

An alternate view, argued with ferocity by Joe Klein (link): Jew extremists are making odious attempts to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was a consequence of his Islamic beliefs. This is anti-Islamic bigotry. It's insanity that causes these killings, and it's a good question whether highly religious people are more psychologically damaged than non-religious people. Think of Barack Goldstein, the Jew who perpetrated the Temple Mount massacre. Think of the mad Jewish settler who assassinated Yitzak Rabin. But don't think that Nidal Hassan's violence was somehow a consequence of his religious orthodoxy: the very notion is bigotry.

My take on that: this wasn't Joe Klein's first Jew-hate mini-rant, and it won't be his last. He doesn't have specific issues that he cares about, that cause him to have "localized" specific beefs with the Jews, as I do. (Sometimes I get nettled over Jewish support for abortion.) He has the Jew-hating paranoid syndrome, where he thinks the Jews are "out to get" the President, the Muslims, or pretty much anyone his mind lights on, and he diverts topics that inherently have little to do with the Jews to being about those odious Jews and their malice.

But he still deserves to be answered, and the answer is: he's wrong. First he was wrong to prejudge everything. Joe's post is right, and Armed Liberal was also right in urging people to hold off on over-interpreting events for the first day or so, till we could get the facts. The facts that are coming out are making the position that Nidal Hasan's massacre of unarmed American soldiers cannot have had anything to do with his religion more and more ridiculous.

Second, he's wrong to go for the big media / liberal style "below the belt" attack, where you try to settle every argument from gay marriage to "what to do about jihad?" in your favor by demonizing those who hold other views as bigots, so that they'll stop speaking up or if they do they won't get a fair hearing. The people who love this tactic should be stigmatized themselves.

Third, he's wrong because the Jewish history of terrorism - and their is one, reflected in the biography of some leaders of Israel - is piffling in extent, ambition, persistence and above all in religious justifications compared to the Islamic history of jihadist terror attacks. The standard to be used in weighing these things is not and cannot be: "Who is perfectly innocent?" Proportion has to matter. Yes the Bible and the Koran both have statements that can be used to justify violence, but the Koran is vastly worse. Or, yes both Hindus and Muslims have holy texts that justify fighting, but Islam is trying to conquer the world, and that is not what Hinduism is about.

These differences are hugely important when you think about what kinds of immigrants may help you and not strain your society, or who you want in your armed forces.