News
Opinion
The shooting had barely stopped at Fort Hood that tragic day, before the clamor began to arise from the liberal peerage in the government and media, telling all who would listen (and then some) that the carnage was absolutely, unequivocally, certainly NOT an act of Islamic terrorism.
This conclusion was arrived at in light of revelations that the shooter, Nidal Hasan, was a Muslim who had made statements supporting suicide bombers and attacks on U.S. troops; had recited an hour-long dissertation on the just punishments awaiting the infidel; and yelled “Allahu Akhbar!” before shooting dead 13 unarmed soldiers returning home to their families and loved ones following a tour of duty in the Middle East and wounding scores of others.
The “Diversity at any cost” crowd virtually tripped over one another trying desperately to downplay these facts (and others), and appear the most sensitive and apologetic to the shooter.
While he was Israeli ambassador to the United Nations in the mid-'80s, Benjamin Netanyahu offered this succinct definition of terrorism — “the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends.” The FBI defines it, more dryly and legalistically, as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
By either of these definitions, Hasan's action, based on all available evidence, suggests it was at least an implicit act of terrorism, subject to a particular set of rules for dealing with the event, and offering, in its cruel way, a specific set of lessons applicable to the prevention of a similar atrocity in the future.
The liberal establishment, however, seems more concerned with their politically correct image and the continuity of their social-engineering programs than they do about precluding future bloodshed. Any and every explanation, that does not involve Islamist radicalization, is therefore offered to rationalize the massacre — from the postulation that he was just a random madman (in the tradition of Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahmer), to quasi-medical hypotheses, such as “secondary PTSD.” Charles Krauthammer, whose academic credentials in the field of psychiatry are well established, termed this as “medicalizing mass murder.”
This line of thinking portends a worldview that is reflected in the current liberal attitudes and policies towards terrorism in general, starting with terminology. Clear and direct wording has been replaced by circumlocution — the word “terrorism” itself has fallen out of favor, replaced by such ridiculous euphemisms as “man-caused disaster”; the War on Terror by the comically florid “overseas contingency operations.”
Beyond the vocabulary, however, lie some fundamental indicators that the left underestimates, or misinterprets, the problem of terrorism. Key among these is the designation of terrorism as a mere law enforcement issue, rather than a more complex national security, or military, concern. And evidence of this is offered by the recent decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, in a civilian court in New York.
In one of the worst decisions regarding the erstwhile War on Terror made by the Obama administration, the architect of the wanton slaughter of 3,000 innocent American civilians will be pulled from a secure military facility, flown to the very city he so savagely helped attack, and be provided a trial, complete with all the legal protections offered to any U.S. citizen.
In addition to the obvious physical security risks involved (what better opportunity for making a violent political statement?) there exist less tangible, but arguably even more serious ramifications. Part of the legal protections inherent in a U.S. civilian criminal court involves the process of discovery — the requirement for the prosecution to share all information relevant to evidence with the defense. This will by definition involve revealing, to some extent, sources and methods of intelligence gathering, the dual and necessarily most closely guarded, pillars of the intelligence community.
The trial will, in effect, provide useful intelligence and training material to those who would wish us harm and overturn much of the progress we have made over the last eight years in combating terrorism at all levels. In addition to the very real security risks, a civilian trial (as already elucidated by the defense attorneys in the case) will devolve into a platform for terrorists to spew their propaganda. Why we would willingly provide a sounding board for the likes of KSM is as puzzling, to say the least, as it is detrimental. It's precisely what the terrorists want - who needs Al-Jazeera when the Americans will provide you a forum on their own soil?
And the assertion by the AG's office, in response to concerns of possible acquittal on procedural, or technical grounds (after all, no enemy combatant is Mirandized on the battlefield), that prosecutorial success is all but given, and that these characters will never be released, reduces the whole affair to show-trial status - if they will (rightly so) never be allowed to walk free regardless of the results, what is the point to holding a trial?
If, as the administration states, it is to showcase the supremacy of our institutions, then shouldn't the presumption of innocence be in play? And if these individuals represent (as they clearly do) a higher level of threat to national security than is allowed for by the civil system, why not utilize the mechanisms for dealing with them for which there is ample precedent (the Nuremburg trials following WWII, for instance, were military tribunals.)
This refusal by the left to recognize such realities is not new. Liberals for years downplayed the threat and nature of the Soviet Union, and rarely missed an opportunity to forfeit America's security for the sake of “peace.” If the Democrats wish to be taken seriously about protecting this nation, they would be wise to start by recognizing terrorism for what it is, and stop sacrificing our security on the altar of political correctness.
Kelly Sloan is chairman of the Policy Watch group for the Western Slope Conservative Alliance, and director of the Mesa County Chapter of Americans For Prosperity. Opinions expressed in Sloan's column are those of his own and do not represent the views of WSCA or AFP.
This conclusion was arrived at in light of revelations that the shooter, Nidal Hasan, was a Muslim who had made statements supporting suicide bombers and attacks on U.S. troops; had recited an hour-long dissertation on the just punishments awaiting the infidel; and yelled “Allahu Akhbar!” before shooting dead 13 unarmed soldiers returning home to their families and loved ones following a tour of duty in the Middle East and wounding scores of others.
The “Diversity at any cost” crowd virtually tripped over one another trying desperately to downplay these facts (and others), and appear the most sensitive and apologetic to the shooter.
While he was Israeli ambassador to the United Nations in the mid-'80s, Benjamin Netanyahu offered this succinct definition of terrorism — “the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends.” The FBI defines it, more dryly and legalistically, as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
By either of these definitions, Hasan's action, based on all available evidence, suggests it was at least an implicit act of terrorism, subject to a particular set of rules for dealing with the event, and offering, in its cruel way, a specific set of lessons applicable to the prevention of a similar atrocity in the future.
The liberal establishment, however, seems more concerned with their politically correct image and the continuity of their social-engineering programs than they do about precluding future bloodshed. Any and every explanation, that does not involve Islamist radicalization, is therefore offered to rationalize the massacre — from the postulation that he was just a random madman (in the tradition of Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahmer), to quasi-medical hypotheses, such as “secondary PTSD.” Charles Krauthammer, whose academic credentials in the field of psychiatry are well established, termed this as “medicalizing mass murder.”
This line of thinking portends a worldview that is reflected in the current liberal attitudes and policies towards terrorism in general, starting with terminology. Clear and direct wording has been replaced by circumlocution — the word “terrorism” itself has fallen out of favor, replaced by such ridiculous euphemisms as “man-caused disaster”; the War on Terror by the comically florid “overseas contingency operations.”
Beyond the vocabulary, however, lie some fundamental indicators that the left underestimates, or misinterprets, the problem of terrorism. Key among these is the designation of terrorism as a mere law enforcement issue, rather than a more complex national security, or military, concern. And evidence of this is offered by the recent decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, in a civilian court in New York.
In one of the worst decisions regarding the erstwhile War on Terror made by the Obama administration, the architect of the wanton slaughter of 3,000 innocent American civilians will be pulled from a secure military facility, flown to the very city he so savagely helped attack, and be provided a trial, complete with all the legal protections offered to any U.S. citizen.
In addition to the obvious physical security risks involved (what better opportunity for making a violent political statement?) there exist less tangible, but arguably even more serious ramifications. Part of the legal protections inherent in a U.S. civilian criminal court involves the process of discovery — the requirement for the prosecution to share all information relevant to evidence with the defense. This will by definition involve revealing, to some extent, sources and methods of intelligence gathering, the dual and necessarily most closely guarded, pillars of the intelligence community.
The trial will, in effect, provide useful intelligence and training material to those who would wish us harm and overturn much of the progress we have made over the last eight years in combating terrorism at all levels. In addition to the very real security risks, a civilian trial (as already elucidated by the defense attorneys in the case) will devolve into a platform for terrorists to spew their propaganda. Why we would willingly provide a sounding board for the likes of KSM is as puzzling, to say the least, as it is detrimental. It's precisely what the terrorists want - who needs Al-Jazeera when the Americans will provide you a forum on their own soil?
And the assertion by the AG's office, in response to concerns of possible acquittal on procedural, or technical grounds (after all, no enemy combatant is Mirandized on the battlefield), that prosecutorial success is all but given, and that these characters will never be released, reduces the whole affair to show-trial status - if they will (rightly so) never be allowed to walk free regardless of the results, what is the point to holding a trial?
If, as the administration states, it is to showcase the supremacy of our institutions, then shouldn't the presumption of innocence be in play? And if these individuals represent (as they clearly do) a higher level of threat to national security than is allowed for by the civil system, why not utilize the mechanisms for dealing with them for which there is ample precedent (the Nuremburg trials following WWII, for instance, were military tribunals.)
This refusal by the left to recognize such realities is not new. Liberals for years downplayed the threat and nature of the Soviet Union, and rarely missed an opportunity to forfeit America's security for the sake of “peace.” If the Democrats wish to be taken seriously about protecting this nation, they would be wise to start by recognizing terrorism for what it is, and stop sacrificing our security on the altar of political correctness.
Kelly Sloan is chairman of the Policy Watch group for the Western Slope Conservative Alliance, and director of the Mesa County Chapter of Americans For Prosperity. Opinions expressed in Sloan's column are those of his own and do not represent the views of WSCA or AFP.
