I'm no legal scholar, but I do think it would be symbolically valuable for Hasan face treason or treason-related charges (again, strictly speaking, I'm unsure of what options are out there) in addition to the thirteen premeditated murder charges because the fact that he is an officer in our nation's military needs to be highlighted. Assuming he is guilty (...hah...), we've got this instance in which an individual who swore loyalty and allegiance to the United States willingly enabled a new interest to usurp the priority of that commitment.
Calling this terrorism is either hysterical or merely for political advantage among certain audiences. It's trendy and sound-bitey without being clear about what the accused is. The more severe charge-- the real crime itself, I think-- is this demonstration of disloyalty through murder. The US military isn't perfect, but it has often been one of the more egalitarian institutions of American society. That's admirable and something to be proud of, and Hasan's alleged actions spit in the face of that achievement. Again, there are failures, but one's race and religion are generally of little concern to the military if one can do the job that is assigned. The grand ideal is that those who serve agree (in the deepest and most formal sense) to act according to duty and loyalty (yes, despite the scintillating leadership of self-interested career politicians). It works when everyone is on the same page regarding what's most important. It can't work if a soldier has another priority, if he is ultimately more concerned about (and acts according to) the interests of Islam, making money, black people, Canada, atheism, poodle enthusiasts, Christianity, Freemasonry, Jedi knights, or anything but the aims of the military. The murders are horrible. That the targets were fellow servicemen is a separate and distinct injury, and I think it should be noted in public, legal terms.
This isn't to say that there shouldn't be dissent. Dissent is part of being American; it's part of being human. American society and the American military do allow it to varying degrees. But ultimately, you've got to know where you stand. What Hasan cares about is pretty evident, and it's not the army. He could have refused to be deployed and simply faced the legal ramifications, but he instead allegedly decided to shoot people. It was an attack on the personnel, morale, and overall fighting ability of our forces. The shooter isn't someone who wants the US to succeed, and yet he is a serviceman. It seems particularly grievous.
Now, regardless of whether this is to be called terrorism, the military should combat the spread of radical Islam (and everything subversive to the military's mission) within its ranks for the sake of doing its job effectively. Much was made of the institutional efforts to prevent extreme right-wing groups from gaining traction among soldiers a while ago, if I remember correctly, so I guess this is something that military does do. Understanding Hasan's motives does matter-- not for his sake or to sympathize, but to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
Anyway, in short, I see a traitor here rather than a terrorist (whatever 'terrorist' eventually comes to mean). Are we terrorized, or are we appropriately pissed off about someone violently crapping on the concept of duty?
*If this 'traitor' angle has been beaten to death in the US media already, I apologize-- I'm somewhat out of the loop.
Interesting article.
Calling this terrorism is either hysterical or merely for political advantage among certain audiences. It's trendy and sound-bitey without being clear about what the accused is. The more severe charge-- the real crime itself, I think-- is this demonstration of disloyalty through murder. The US military isn't perfect, but it has often been one of the more egalitarian institutions of American society. That's admirable and something to be proud of, and Hasan's alleged actions spit in the face of that achievement. Again, there are failures, but one's race and religion are generally of little concern to the military if one can do the job that is assigned. The grand ideal is that those who serve agree (in the deepest and most formal sense) to act according to duty and loyalty (yes, despite the scintillating leadership of self-interested career politicians). It works when everyone is on the same page regarding what's most important. It can't work if a soldier has another priority, if he is ultimately more concerned about (and acts according to) the interests of Islam, making money, black people, Canada, atheism, poodle enthusiasts, Christianity, Freemasonry, Jedi knights, or anything but the aims of the military. The murders are horrible. That the targets were fellow servicemen is a separate and distinct injury, and I think it should be noted in public, legal terms.
This isn't to say that there shouldn't be dissent. Dissent is part of being American; it's part of being human. American society and the American military do allow it to varying degrees. But ultimately, you've got to know where you stand. What Hasan cares about is pretty evident, and it's not the army. He could have refused to be deployed and simply faced the legal ramifications, but he instead allegedly decided to shoot people. It was an attack on the personnel, morale, and overall fighting ability of our forces. The shooter isn't someone who wants the US to succeed, and yet he is a serviceman. It seems particularly grievous.
Now, regardless of whether this is to be called terrorism, the military should combat the spread of radical Islam (and everything subversive to the military's mission) within its ranks for the sake of doing its job effectively. Much was made of the institutional efforts to prevent extreme right-wing groups from gaining traction among soldiers a while ago, if I remember correctly, so I guess this is something that military does do. Understanding Hasan's motives does matter-- not for his sake or to sympathize, but to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
Anyway, in short, I see a traitor here rather than a terrorist (whatever 'terrorist' eventually comes to mean). Are we terrorized, or are we appropriately pissed off about someone violently crapping on the concept of duty?
*If this 'traitor' angle has been beaten to death in the US media already, I apologize-- I'm somewhat out of the loop.
Interesting article.
Posts
