This entry was posted
on Thursday, November 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm and is filed under News.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
…I’m having a hard time with this one, too… every Army psychiatrist I ever talked to seemed every bit as caring and violence-averse as a chaplain is expected to be.
Damn.. just.. damn
No one took all the crazy shit he was doing before as a warning? Usually if someone is heading for a complete breakdown like that, they are throwing off ‘flares’ left, right, and center that scream “Look at me I need help”…
Captcha; 5068 calming – well yes that many prozac would definately have a calming effect.
Let’s see here the “red flag” should have been that he was unwilling to deploy to an Islamic country and supported suicide bombers. This was not a case of a wounded and sick soldier losing it was a case of an individual believes countermanding the oath he took as both a soldier and a doctor.
The military is reflection of our society and our society has been in trouble for a long time. My condolences to the families of the dead and injured, the injured themselves, and all who witnessed this horror. I hope the prosecutors forget about political correctness and but the murdered in front of a firing squad.
First, this is a sad day. We’ve lost more than a platoon’s worth of Soldiers to one (so far the reports say) gunman. Some of these wounded may never return to the force, some may still pass away. but regardless this is a platoon’s worth who are out of the fight.
Second, I can’t jump on the bandwagon condemning the individual named so far because I believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty. So no matter how I emotionally feel I have to cognitively stick to that.
Third, I’m going to say my other piece, which isn’t about this particular event, but which this event makes clear. We had 40+ individuals trained and versed in the use of firearms and cooperative fire who were gunned down by one person, the rules say that for these victims to have been armed would have been illegal.
Anyone think it is still a good rule to not let Soldiers carry firearms unless we first drop them off in another country or put draconian fear mongering scare tactics into them at a range first? While arming them would not have prevented this (at least I don’t think it would) it may have lessened the pain of it.
For those who think putting that out there is taking advantage of the situation I am. It is called being current and striking while the iron is hot. The issue wouldn’t change if I waited a week, a month, or a year to say it.
I do find it silly that now that I’m no longer on active duty, I’m armed a lot more often than when I was. I always felt it was idiotic that I was sent everywhere with an unloaded M16. The thing doesn’t make a terrible club, but against some crazy with a pair of 9mms? I’ll take my concealed handgun license and subcompact .45 Glock, thank you very much.
Morning after and all that. 13 dead and 30 wounded.
Without going into too much detail of my background, professionally speaking there were all sorts of indicators. So why the hell didn’t someone in the 902nd MI get onto this? I never sat around on my thumb waiting for someone to assign me a case, “pro-active” is something hammered into our heads in AIT, at least it used to be.
An indicator: he listed his nationality as Palestinian, though he was born in VA. I have a cousin married to a Palestinian, but he insists that he is now an AMERICAN.
Another: he argued with patients WIA recovering at Walter Reed that he was supposed to be helping. He got bad marks on his OER, but still was promoted to MAJ & then transferred to Ft Hood – someone shuffled off the problem.
Big indicator: his name was on internet postings on radical sites routinely monitored by the FBI, DIA, and Army CI. Six months of postings and no case was opened. WTF?!
Speaking as an investigator, my focus is SUBJECT did this action, SUBJECT posted this online, SUBJECT acted in treasonous/seditious manner on this date at this time at this location etc. I do not have to pussy-foot around and say the wuss-words like “alleged.”
Good news: thousands of locals flooded blood banks to give blood upon hearing the news.
Interesting that he also was the gunman when they (media) thought he was dead, now he is the alleged gunman since it turns out he’s alive.
Oh, and you can say subject all you want, until you can PROVE the subject made the postings your ASSUMING that the person who posted was using their actual name. Lets see a MAC address identification, how about an IP trace, the cache from hie personal computer, okay internet browsing history at least, maybe something from his ISP. Until then your assuming that the name on the posting was the posters real name, and frankly its an incredibly weak connection.
If I, or you, were on the scene and saw the alleged gunman do it it would be a different story, but unless you were on the scene and can say you SAW them do it/pull the trigger your still assuming. So you can’t say/testify that SUBJECT did it. Unless your claiming to have witnessed it, then just disregard that. For those of us not on the scene, how about some ballistics, video, witness testimony (so far the media really hasn’t gotten to speak to many that I’ve seen). Then we can all jump on the bandwagon screaming for blood and still get to have our principles.
But hey, the facts will come out, my gut tells me the facts will back up my assumptions, that the guy is guilty as hell and deserves the chair. Until then it is about having principles, and one of those is innocent until proven guilty.
Reference the nationality, first I’ve heard of that, interesting if true.
The promotion, not real surprising, selection rate for Major is around 90%+.
Doing a blood drive up here very soon by the post-wide e-mail I just got also, it is already encouraging people to go to the blood bank and donate, sad that it takes an event like this to get people to do it.
I’m also with you 100% on all of the families involved.
AFAIK, once an Army doctor is board certified, it’s an automatic promotion to Major.
As for indicators, if even half the indicators that have come to light are real, and had happened to me — my clearance would have been yanked, I’d be put on admin leave, and a counterintelligence investigation opened on me.
And I’m not some super-spooky crypto guy either; just a guy with a clearance. Hell’s Bells, a Major (even a shrink) ought to meet the requirements that would qualify for a SECRET clearance. (In fact, isn’t a SECRET clearance a requirement for a commission in general?)
My hat (beret) is off to her. I understand the issue about hollow points, I think they would be a good reason for a numbers, including the lessened chance of unintentional injuries caused following travel through a wall. Using tadard rounds my glock can put hole through cinder block and still kill. Switching to hollow points though prevents it. Its why I only use hollow points and buckshot for home defense. I have no desire to shoot my neighbors.
I am glad they have a live person though. If they were part of a bigger group we may find out now. The dead may speak, but the living can do so more clearly.
What I am very glad for is that the perp wasn’t wearing a Interceptor Vest or plate carrier with plates. Could have been much worse.
This whole thing is very sad. I read part of the NYT article on it this morning. Apparently he was counseling all the PTSD soldiers and he was afraid. Which, on its own, is understandable. If all you ever see is the worst of the worst, you will assume that it is always that way. However, he should have talked about it to someone, it’s not like he didn’t work with a bunch of other doctors. Someone would have listened to him I’m sure.
Also, regarding what Speed said about him listing nationality, I agree. If you can’t identify yourself with the country you were born and raised in, and now have sworn to defend and serve, you should not have raised your right hand.
Look, if you don’t want to deploy, there are ways to avoid deployment that don’t involve shooting 30+ people. Even if they wouldn’t let him resign his commission.
The anti-homosexual law is still in effect (and will remain so until Congress changes the law. . . which they’ve refused to do since before Clinton put “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into effect). He could march into the commanding general’s office, throw teh old dog some tongue, and insist he really likes hairless young men. I guarantee he would NOT be deploying to Iraq then. . .
I am not in any way condoning his actions. I am just stating the fact that he was afraid, as most guys are before they deploy. Of course, most guys don’t go and shoot 43 people (30 wounded, 13 dead). In all honesty I don’t think he should have been in uniform to begin with, he didn’t have a problem being in the army until he had to deploy. No problem with the army paying for med school and all his other training. He should have thought about the fact that at some point he would be deploying before he signed the contract, not after.
Interestingly, if you want to be a practicing psychiatrist in the civilian sector, you yourself must undergo psychiatric counseling. If it’s different in the military, then I understand how this situation happened. If not, I’d find hispsychiatrist and figure out what the f- happened on that end.
We’ve already GOT reports out — from other Army officers, including other doctors and shrinks he worked with. They KNEW he was a nutbag, from briefings he delivered to them, and open public arguments he had with fellow officers.
Nobody was willing to run a red flag up, for fear of being labelled an anti-Muslim bigot.
Turn it around — make him a WASP, and give him “right wing” leanings and deliver the same behaviors as white supremacist leaning statements.
He’d have been cashiered years ago, in that case.
Becuase we don’t mind offending redneck bigots — but God forbid we say anything ill about disloyal Wahhibists.
Don’t get me wrong, he should have been more thoroughly checked out a long time ago.
But when I was in I saw a *lot* of crazy being dished out, and plenty of it was from white Christian folks. It usually got overlooked unless the soldier in question did something to act on it.
Remember that for the past few years recruitment has been way down. They’ve been letting a lot of questionable conduct slide, just because they need the bodies so badly.
Rick R. reply on November 11th, 2009 2:32 pm:
Skippy,
I remember when they were getting rid of soldiers for merely havening BEEN skinheads prior to enlistment, even if no criminal behavior was alleged.
This guy told fellow officers that the throats of unbelievers needed to be cut, and that that was what good Muslims were called to do.
The ONLY reason action was not taken was the top-down insistance that we needed to bend over backwards to be extra gentle to our Muslim fellows.
A feeling which my old Muslim buddy (born on the Pakistani/Afghan border, and regualrly took leave to visit his family there, even during the Soviet-Afghan war) would VIOLENTLY disagree with.
Hell, Sajid would probably volunteer to command the firing party if they still punished such treason with “death by musketry”.
skippy reply on November 11th, 2009 3:28 pm:
Rick,
I served with three former skinheads that I knew of. (They were definitely reformed, otherwise they wouldn’t have been friends with me)
I also saw open bigots of damn near every possible type, although most tended to lean towards the right. (It was the Army after all) Much of what I experienced and witnessed was comparable to what this guy said.
The “no right winger allowed to be verbally prejudicial” Army you are describing is frankly unbelievable to me.
To be clear, I have personally been on the receiving end of the behavior that you are saying would not have been permitted, from the people that you are saying could not have gotten away with it.
You are wrong about this.
Also, you are aware that it has been making the press for the past few years that the military has been getting a lot less picky, and a lot of folks who wouldn’t have been allowed in have been joining?
So here are reason that I think are likely to have led the fuck-tard’s behavior being overlooked
1) Needed personnel. Especially medical.
2) Nobody took him seriously. If every person who said “X deserves to die” actually followed through on it, there’d be a lot more bodies around. Actually, didn’t you make a pretty impassioned argument along those lines once?
3) Worried that they might be overdoing it on a Muslim soldier. Like you said. I could imagine a guy saying “Well I’m only worried because he is a Muslim….I probably wouldn’t say anything if it was a white guy, or a black guy or something….I should keep my mouth shut. I just don’t think that this is the only option.
Unless of course you were personally part of his chain of command, and thus were privy to the decision making process involving him, and thus have some first hand experience that applies?
Rick R. reply on November 11th, 2009 4:04 pm:
Skippy,
I had to walk two of my kids through clearing procedures after the command became aware of their (previous) skinhead affiliation. They were chaptered out in less than 14 days from it coming to official attention — not from anything they said or did, but because one had a Neo Nazi tatoo that came to the attention of a clerk & jerk in the shower, and the other came to his defence. (Those of us in the unit KNEW the story about the tattoo — as he said, getting oinvolved with those inbred yokels in high school was the stupidist thing he’d ever done, and he couldn’t wait to get rid of the tatoo.)
Of course, we handled it within the unit the same way we handled homosexuality. If you were a good soldier and you kept it (reasonably) quite, no problems — we’d even lie to cover your ass. If you were a shit bag, chances were someone was going to dime you out, just to get rid of you.
I remember being briefed on signs of “right wing extremism” to look for among my men, and that if I saw any, I was to report it (anonymously, if I felt “uneasy”). That was an annual NCODP briefing, and yes, the First Sergeant had to track which NCOs had had it and when. Somewhere in a box of shit in the attic, I probably still have the badly photocopied (from full color pretty tri-fold brochures) handouts.
Don;t you remember the uproar in the press? “ZOMG! There’s former skinheads, Nazis, and other right-wing undesireables in the ranks!” And there was a concerted (if quiet) effort to get them purged.
We have SPECIFICALLY been bending over backwards to avoid offending Muslims, ESPECIALLY since 9/11. I’m not blaming the President — it was just as bad under Bush.
skippy reply on November 11th, 2009 5:56 pm:
Your story, while tragic, does not actually prove your point.
All that it demonstrates is that two soldiers were kicked out for ties to white supremacy. I pointed out that I served with three soldiers that had the opposite experience.
Of our samples so far, over 50% were allowed to stay in.
“Don;t you remember the uproar in the press? “ZOMG! There’s former skinheads, Nazis, and other right-wing undesireables in the ranks!” And there was a concerted (if quiet) effort to get them purged.”
Yes I remember that. Which proves my point, inso much as that they were allowed to join in the first place. And to be fair. I don’t care that skinheads are joining because they are right-wingers. If you think that’s the problem then you are missing the point. It’s the whole “violent racists” thing that they have going on.
“I remember being briefed on signs of “right wing extremism” to look for among my men, and that if I saw any, I was to report it (anonymously, if I felt “uneasy”).”
They looked for signs of left wing extremism too. But to be fair, left wing extremists are not likely to join the military.
To be clear my issue with your statements is that right-wing and or WASP bigoted extremists are not allwoed to serve, but muslim bigoted extremists are.
I have served with Christian and Conservation bigoted extremists. (BTW there are right wing/christian bigots that are not skinheads, just FYI
And for the record the formers skinheads I served with were not bigots…they made mistakes when they were younger, and went through the same mess your sons did, but were allowed to remain in.
I also take issue with the “bending over backwards to avoid offending the muslims”. Considering how poorly the military treats all minority religions, I have trouble picturing it. Do you have any examples?
Rick R. reply on November 12th, 2009 8:20 am:
Skippy,
The two soldiers I dealt with were NOT racissts or bigots. They had FORMER ties to white supremecy jackasses, and realized that is was stupid before they joined. No, zero NADA, incidents of them even having a complaint mentioned to the chain of command or the EEO NCO until the shower incident. Which didn’t involve CONDUCT, but a tattoo the one kid had been wearing before he enlisted. (Just like there were people with former gang tattoos.) In other words, the ONLY “extremism” involved was that someone else was offended by a visual symbol that pre-dated teh wearer’s enlistment.
The other kid came to “official attention” for telling the complainer to back off — plenty of people had made stupid mistakes and gotten involved with teh worng people before starigtening out and enlisting — and he offered himself as an example.
Neither one was a right wing extremist or bigot. They merely had previous ties to it.
Yes, the military is insensitive to minority religions. Guess what? They are pretty damned insensitive to not-so-minority religions as well. As a practising Roman Catholic (at the time), I seriously resented being marched to Baptist church call (it wasn’t “non-demoniational” at all — pure Southern Baptist, Pat Robertson style), just because the Baptist chaplain was handy. (Of course I resented being ordered to go to Catholic church call in Basic, as well — but at least I had told the Army to put Roman Catholic on my dog tags.)
But I never had regular appointments with the EEO NCO to discuss my feelings — whereas my Muslim buddy DID. I believe they were quarterly — they were certainly more than annually.
He (my buddy), by the way, was the one who got me OUT of Baptist church call, becuase when I said I wouldn’t go and they started threatening me with extra duty, or even an Article 15 for failure to obey, he jumped in with the opening phrase, “As a Muslim, I refuse to go as well, and you can’t lawfully order me. . . and I want to file a complaint,” which IMMEDIATELY shut down the stupidity. Then he, I, and a couple other non-Protestants all went to worship at the Chaple of Burger King until church call was over. That was the end of forced church call attendance. (BTW — the chaplian in question? He was MORTIFIED to find out that they had been press-ganging “worshippers”, and he made a point of speaking with us to make sure we knew we COULD NOT be forced to church, but he was still available to talk to, regardless of our religious feelings or lack thereof. Nice guy, if a little credulous.)
Yes, I, too, have served with “right-wing” bigots. I’ve met a few in the service. Not many — and I filed a complaint on the ones I encountered.
I met a lot more non-right wing bigots, though. (Wouldn’t charactrerize them as “left-wing”, though — it was more of a pure race/ethinic thing, with no political framework. For that matter, the handful of white bigots were just racists, too — not really “right-wing”, just jackasses.)
There wasn’t any point in filing complaints on them, however — I SAW what happened to people who filed complaints against them. A white guy filing a grievance against a minority ended up about the same as if the white guy had had a grievance filed against THEM by a minority. No thank you — better to just suck it up and hope the offender gets promoted out early.
The only exception to that “rule” was if the white guy filed a well-founded grievance against a minority (inclduing female) soldier who had a solid history of filing BS claims at the drop of a hat. (Even then, the usual result would be NO WORSE than a counseling statement for the minority offender — usually no worse than an ass-chewing and getting stuck on the shit details for a short while. Meanwhile, I NEVER saw a “white guy” offender accused by a minority where there was ANY foundation, no matter how slender, get LESS than a counseling statement.)
I had a false EEO complaint field against me once, by a private on a work detail who didn’t know me (it was a brigade detail, he was from a different battalion). Nothing came of that one because not only didn’t the EEO NCO believe him (and that NCO and I actively disliked each other), but several of the other (same minority) privates on the detail made a point of seeking out the EEO to defend me and set the record straight — PVT Whiny was a lying sack of shit who resenting being told to get off his ass and work like the rest of the detail.
Frankly, the only “left-wing” extremist anyone was interested in actually investigating would have been an honest-to-God Communist. And while I’ve known several Communists (and as people, many of them are OK — as long as they want to VOTE Marxism in, I don’t see them as “enemies, foreign or domestic”, just “opponants”). Some of those Communists were former servicemembers. But as they even admitted — if they were Commies in uniform, they kept their damned mouths shut, so no one knew.
Skippy, I’m never going to convince you — you apparantly want names and dates of specific instances. And frankly, I didn’t care enough THEN to recall names of people I disliked after they were gone.
Nor did I get too torn up about it, because I have ALWAYS expected that the world is unfair — if you’re the one getting shit on today, well, life sucks for you. Tomorrow will probably be different, and someone else will be getting shit on instead. “The universe hates you and will do it’s best to hurt you.”
I do know what I witnessed, what I experienced.
skippy reply on November 12th, 2009 10:44 am:
I feel like you are making arguments to defend against points that I am not trying to make.
“The two soldiers I dealt with were NOT racists or bigots. They had FORMER ties to white supremacy jackasses, ”
I never said that they were racists or bigots, but I did use the point that they had ties to a racist organization.
Your story mostly proved my point. You said that the Army wouldn’t tolerate right-wing extremism but would bend over backwards to tolerate muslim extremism.
Here’s a quote in fact:
“To be clear my issue with your statements is that right-wing and or WASP bigoted extremists are not allowed to serve, but muslim bigoted extremists are.”
We have both demonstrated that the Army is tolerant of all manner of nutjobery.
I also objected to “The ONLY reason action was not taken was the top-down insistence that we needed to bend over backwards to be extra gentle to our Muslim fellows.”
Which given my experience I don’t believe is a top down directive.
When I asked for examples I wanted some proof that this was some sort of official/unofficial Army policy of treating this on Religion with kid gloves.
SO far you’ve demonstrated that you once worked for a bully, who backed down because your Muslim friend was the only one with the balls to call him out. One incident doesn’t make it Army policy.
What you have witness, and experienced (or at least shared) does not demonstrate that the statements I objected to are correct.
I’m not actually sure what you are trying to convince me of at this point, other that that Muslims get special treatment.
So to be really really clear my points were:
1) People can be crazy prejudiced/bigoted in ways that are not Muslim, and still not get kicked out. (We both proved that one)
2) It is possible that the reason that the shooter has not been cashiered out of the Army for reasons other than the fact that as a Muslim, he was handled with kid gloves, on a directive from high up in the chain of command.
I didn’t even say that this was an impossible scenerio. It may well of happened that way. I just objected to you stating that it was the only possibility.
It took me a while to realize that this happened on the sole U.S. Base I’ve actually set foot in. My brain is still numb.
Soldiers on base should be armed. Especially when the nation is at war. Even this tree hugging Canadian thinks anything else is just moronic.
When I read the first article it said “Muslim soldier..” NOT American. It made me think “If this is what he’s been getting from day one, why the hell did he ever re-up?” I can’t imagine the pay or benefits are that great.. even as a Major.
Sahdowydreamer — HE’S the one who apparantly identifies his own nationality as “Palestinian”, even though he was born here.
So, yeah — he’s not an “American soldier”, and he’s not a soldier who happens to be Muslim. He’s a soldier in the American Army who chooses to be the “Muslim soldier”.
Fuck him. Fuck his little ego. I hope he gets the death penalty — and NOT a firing squad. Execute him like any common murderer, with a needle, like a rabid dog.
As I said it was the *first* article. They didn’t even know his name at that point.
I think he gave up all rights as a HUMAN when he opened fire on his brothers and sisters.
Is it bloodthirsty to hope he gets tried by a public *Texan* jury rather than Military? Texans seem a bit faster to get rid of those who have given up their right to be on this planet.
Unfortunately, I don;t think there is any way he’ll be tried in a civilian court — it occurred solely on base.
That’s unfortunate, since the US military hasn’t executed anyone since 1961. Hell, a guy convicted in 1988 only had his death warrant signed in 2008 (after exhausting appeals), and he got another stay of execution in November 2008. . .
Obama will NEVER sign this guy’s death warrant. But teh next president might.
I’m hoping Obama will surprise us. First politician I’ve heard in a long time admit he was wrong and change his position on something, maybe he’ll do the right thing here.
he was “mortified” to deploy not scared not reluctant mortified, the word means “To cause to experience shame, humiliation, or wounded pride”; humiliate.. it was not because of the work he did with returning heroes it was because he personally identified more with the enemy then with the men and woman he was dually sworn to protect.
And this is why you always read the really big print on all contracts in addition to the little print. The RBP in this case reading “by the way, if we pay for all this, you work for us. Which means you’re going to be a US soldier. If you don’t like this, stand in line at the bank like everyone else.”
Idiot @sshat just screwed over all the non-whacko and loyal American Muslims. Dennis Miller said it best, if you’re having these kind of thoughts you need to take one for the home team and lean into the pitch. Would have saved a lot of heartache.
As of this morning (Saturday Nov. 7): the shooter has been transfered to another hospital, and is reportedly ‘paralyzed’…. GOOD! And like Shadowydreamer above, I’m hoping he’s tried by a civilian Texan jury…..
How did you find out he was paralyzed? If tax dollars aren’t used to support him, I think he should be left in a vegetative state because it would be worse, to him, then death. He expected to be killed, so this could be a drawn-out payback.
hmmm, just got that ‘paralyzed’ (as well as ‘comatose’) on the news (CBS) yesterday morning; haven’t heard it since, although today they’re reporting him taken off the ventilator, still in intensive care and “not responding to questions”….. odd. Is he conscious and refusing to talk to investigators, or in a coma/otherwise unable to talk?
What a coward: joined up so the Army would pay for his medical degrees; but when that same Army wants to use what it paid for, as he agreed in advance, the chickenshit wants out, ’cause all of a sudden he disagrees with the mission. He’s a coward and a disgrace to the uniform.
I agree that the Texas civilian judicial system could process him faster and more effectively. Unfortunately, I do not see how — as far as I am aware, he committed his crimes solely within the Federal enclave of Fort Hood. I don’t see the state jursidiction.
If it was a conspiracy case, you could drag it into a state court if ANY action of the conspiracy (even a lunch meeting at Denny’s) took place off post.
It’s interesting that he attended the same mosque as several of the 9/11 hijackers, maintains his primary allegiance to a “homeland” other than the one he was born in and continues to live in, and has apparantly been a radical Islamic nutjob for quite some time.
Yet he waited until he was ready to deploy to a Muslim nation to start trying to get out of his commission. Eight years after it was pretty apparant that we were going to be going into the Middle East in force, and for an extended period.
Follow
November 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
holy sh**
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
unbelievable…..
how can people DO this kind of insanity?!?
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
i’m just speechless
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
What the Frack?
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
I can’t believe this happened. And the gunman was an Army medic! Can you believe that?
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I can’t wrap my head around it.
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
damn….i’m watching all the breaking news. major irony- he was a physchiatrist for god’s sake
Reply
Matt reply on November 6th, 2009 7:33 am:
It’s a sad day when your psychiatrists are going nuts.
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
…I’m having a hard time with this one, too… every Army psychiatrist I ever talked to seemed every bit as caring and violence-averse as a chaplain is expected to be.
I just don’t understand…
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Damn.. just.. damn
No one took all the crazy shit he was doing before as a warning? Usually if someone is heading for a complete breakdown like that, they are throwing off ‘flares’ left, right, and center that scream “Look at me I need help”…
Captcha; 5068 calming – well yes that many prozac would definately have a calming effect.
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
It was one hell of a thing to come across while flipping through channels here in Iraq.
Reply
November 5th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Let’s see here the “red flag” should have been that he was unwilling to deploy to an Islamic country and supported suicide bombers. This was not a case of a wounded and sick soldier losing it was a case of an individual believes countermanding the oath he took as both a soldier and a doctor.
Reply
November 6th, 2009 at 3:56 am
My prayers are for the family and friends of those killed.
Reply
November 6th, 2009 at 5:39 am
The military is reflection of our society and our society has been in trouble for a long time. My condolences to the families of the dead and injured, the injured themselves, and all who witnessed this horror. I hope the prosecutors forget about political correctness and but the murdered in front of a firing squad.
Reply
November 6th, 2009 at 6:00 am
I can’t just not say these things.
First, this is a sad day. We’ve lost more than a platoon’s worth of Soldiers to one (so far the reports say) gunman. Some of these wounded may never return to the force, some may still pass away. but regardless this is a platoon’s worth who are out of the fight.
Second, I can’t jump on the bandwagon condemning the individual named so far because I believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty. So no matter how I emotionally feel I have to cognitively stick to that.
Third, I’m going to say my other piece, which isn’t about this particular event, but which this event makes clear. We had 40+ individuals trained and versed in the use of firearms and cooperative fire who were gunned down by one person, the rules say that for these victims to have been armed would have been illegal.
Anyone think it is still a good rule to not let Soldiers carry firearms unless we first drop them off in another country or put draconian fear mongering scare tactics into them at a range first? While arming them would not have prevented this (at least I don’t think it would) it may have lessened the pain of it.
For those who think putting that out there is taking advantage of the situation I am. It is called being current and striking while the iron is hot. The issue wouldn’t change if I waited a week, a month, or a year to say it.
Reply
LoC reply on November 6th, 2009 9:57 am:
I do find it silly that now that I’m no longer on active duty, I’m armed a lot more often than when I was. I always felt it was idiotic that I was sent everywhere with an unloaded M16. The thing doesn’t make a terrible club, but against some crazy with a pair of 9mms? I’ll take my concealed handgun license and subcompact .45 Glock, thank you very much.
Reply
November 6th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Morning after and all that. 13 dead and 30 wounded.
Without going into too much detail of my background, professionally speaking there were all sorts of indicators. So why the hell didn’t someone in the 902nd MI get onto this? I never sat around on my thumb waiting for someone to assign me a case, “pro-active” is something hammered into our heads in AIT, at least it used to be.
An indicator: he listed his nationality as Palestinian, though he was born in VA. I have a cousin married to a Palestinian, but he insists that he is now an AMERICAN.
Another: he argued with patients WIA recovering at Walter Reed that he was supposed to be helping. He got bad marks on his OER, but still was promoted to MAJ & then transferred to Ft Hood – someone shuffled off the problem.
Big indicator: his name was on internet postings on radical sites routinely monitored by the FBI, DIA, and Army CI. Six months of postings and no case was opened. WTF?!
Speaking as an investigator, my focus is SUBJECT did this action, SUBJECT posted this online, SUBJECT acted in treasonous/seditious manner on this date at this time at this location etc. I do not have to pussy-foot around and say the wuss-words like “alleged.”
Good news: thousands of locals flooded blood banks to give blood upon hearing the news.
Sad news: the poor family of that knucklehead.
Reply
SFC TC reply on November 6th, 2009 6:47 am:
Interesting that he also was the gunman when they (media) thought he was dead, now he is the alleged gunman since it turns out he’s alive.
Oh, and you can say subject all you want, until you can PROVE the subject made the postings your ASSUMING that the person who posted was using their actual name. Lets see a MAC address identification, how about an IP trace, the cache from hie personal computer, okay internet browsing history at least, maybe something from his ISP. Until then your assuming that the name on the posting was the posters real name, and frankly its an incredibly weak connection.
If I, or you, were on the scene and saw the alleged gunman do it it would be a different story, but unless you were on the scene and can say you SAW them do it/pull the trigger your still assuming. So you can’t say/testify that SUBJECT did it. Unless your claiming to have witnessed it, then just disregard that. For those of us not on the scene, how about some ballistics, video, witness testimony (so far the media really hasn’t gotten to speak to many that I’ve seen). Then we can all jump on the bandwagon screaming for blood and still get to have our principles.
But hey, the facts will come out, my gut tells me the facts will back up my assumptions, that the guy is guilty as hell and deserves the chair. Until then it is about having principles, and one of those is innocent until proven guilty.
Reference the nationality, first I’ve heard of that, interesting if true.
The promotion, not real surprising, selection rate for Major is around 90%+.
Doing a blood drive up here very soon by the post-wide e-mail I just got also, it is already encouraging people to go to the blood bank and donate, sad that it takes an event like this to get people to do it.
I’m also with you 100% on all of the families involved.
Reply
Rick R. reply on November 6th, 2009 12:19 pm:
AFAIK, once an Army doctor is board certified, it’s an automatic promotion to Major.
As for indicators, if even half the indicators that have come to light are real, and had happened to me — my clearance would have been yanked, I’d be put on admin leave, and a counterintelligence investigation opened on me.
And I’m not some super-spooky crypto guy either; just a guy with a clearance. Hell’s Bells, a Major (even a shrink) ought to meet the requirements that would qualify for a SECRET clearance. (In fact, isn’t a SECRET clearance a requirement for a commission in general?)
Reply
November 6th, 2009 at 7:32 am
SFC TC, I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to allow our soldiers to be armed, 24/7 if they wish.
On the same topic, I would suggest it is time to authorize our MPs to use hollow-points. That alone might of prevented the perp from living.
Reply
Jon reply on November 6th, 2009 8:30 am:
Interestingly, it was apparently a civilian cop that took him down with four shots… this after having been shot herself by the guy.
Reply
SFC TC reply on November 6th, 2009 8:48 am:
My hat (beret) is off to her. I understand the issue about hollow points, I think they would be a good reason for a numbers, including the lessened chance of unintentional injuries caused following travel through a wall. Using tadard rounds my glock can put hole through cinder block and still kill. Switching to hollow points though prevents it. Its why I only use hollow points and buckshot for home defense. I have no desire to shoot my neighbors.
I am glad they have a live person though. If they were part of a bigger group we may find out now. The dead may speak, but the living can do so more clearly.
What I am very glad for is that the perp wasn’t wearing a Interceptor Vest or plate carrier with plates. Could have been much worse.
Reply
November 6th, 2009 at 10:05 am
This whole thing is very sad. I read part of the NYT article on it this morning. Apparently he was counseling all the PTSD soldiers and he was afraid. Which, on its own, is understandable. If all you ever see is the worst of the worst, you will assume that it is always that way. However, he should have talked about it to someone, it’s not like he didn’t work with a bunch of other doctors. Someone would have listened to him I’m sure.
Also, regarding what Speed said about him listing nationality, I agree. If you can’t identify yourself with the country you were born and raised in, and now have sworn to defend and serve, you should not have raised your right hand.
Reply
Rick R. reply on November 6th, 2009 12:25 pm:
He was “afraid”?
Look, if you don’t want to deploy, there are ways to avoid deployment that don’t involve shooting 30+ people. Even if they wouldn’t let him resign his commission.
The anti-homosexual law is still in effect (and will remain so until Congress changes the law. . . which they’ve refused to do since before Clinton put “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into effect). He could march into the commanding general’s office, throw teh old dog some tongue, and insist he really likes hairless young men. I guarantee he would NOT be deploying to Iraq then. . .
Reply
Kat reply on November 6th, 2009 1:50 pm:
I am not in any way condoning his actions. I am just stating the fact that he was afraid, as most guys are before they deploy. Of course, most guys don’t go and shoot 43 people (30 wounded, 13 dead). In all honesty I don’t think he should have been in uniform to begin with, he didn’t have a problem being in the army until he had to deploy. No problem with the army paying for med school and all his other training. He should have thought about the fact that at some point he would be deploying before he signed the contract, not after.
Reply
Minty reply on November 11th, 2009 11:33 am:
Interestingly, if you want to be a practicing psychiatrist in the civilian sector, you yourself must undergo psychiatric counseling. If it’s different in the military, then I understand how this situation happened. If not, I’d find hispsychiatrist and figure out what the f- happened on that end.
Reply
Rick R. reply on November 11th, 2009 1:43 pm:
We’ve already GOT reports out — from other Army officers, including other doctors and shrinks he worked with. They KNEW he was a nutbag, from briefings he delivered to them, and open public arguments he had with fellow officers.
Nobody was willing to run a red flag up, for fear of being labelled an anti-Muslim bigot.
Turn it around — make him a WASP, and give him “right wing” leanings and deliver the same behaviors as white supremacist leaning statements.
He’d have been cashiered years ago, in that case.
Becuase we don’t mind offending redneck bigots — but God forbid we say anything ill about disloyal Wahhibists.
Reply
skippy reply on November 11th, 2009 2:26 pm:
I dunno about that.
Don’t get me wrong, he should have been more thoroughly checked out a long time ago.
But when I was in I saw a *lot* of crazy being dished out, and plenty of it was from white Christian folks. It usually got overlooked unless the soldier in question did something to act on it.
Remember that for the past few years recruitment has been way down. They’ve been letting a lot of questionable conduct slide, just because they need the bodies so badly.
Rick R. reply on November 11th, 2009 2:32 pm:
Skippy,
I remember when they were getting rid of soldiers for merely havening BEEN skinheads prior to enlistment, even if no criminal behavior was alleged.
This guy told fellow officers that the throats of unbelievers needed to be cut, and that that was what good Muslims were called to do.
The ONLY reason action was not taken was the top-down insistance that we needed to bend over backwards to be extra gentle to our Muslim fellows.
A feeling which my old Muslim buddy (born on the Pakistani/Afghan border, and regualrly took leave to visit his family there, even during the Soviet-Afghan war) would VIOLENTLY disagree with.
Hell, Sajid would probably volunteer to command the firing party if they still punished such treason with “death by musketry”.
skippy reply on November 11th, 2009 3:28 pm:
Rick,
I served with three former skinheads that I knew of. (They were definitely reformed, otherwise they wouldn’t have been friends with me)
I also saw open bigots of damn near every possible type, although most tended to lean towards the right. (It was the Army after all) Much of what I experienced and witnessed was comparable to what this guy said.
The “no right winger allowed to be verbally prejudicial” Army you are describing is frankly unbelievable to me.
To be clear, I have personally been on the receiving end of the behavior that you are saying would not have been permitted, from the people that you are saying could not have gotten away with it.
You are wrong about this.
Also, you are aware that it has been making the press for the past few years that the military has been getting a lot less picky, and a lot of folks who wouldn’t have been allowed in have been joining?
So here are reason that I think are likely to have led the fuck-tard’s behavior being overlooked
1) Needed personnel. Especially medical.
2) Nobody took him seriously. If every person who said “X deserves to die” actually followed through on it, there’d be a lot more bodies around. Actually, didn’t you make a pretty impassioned argument along those lines once?
3) Worried that they might be overdoing it on a Muslim soldier. Like you said. I could imagine a guy saying “Well I’m only worried because he is a Muslim….I probably wouldn’t say anything if it was a white guy, or a black guy or something….I should keep my mouth shut. I just don’t think that this is the only option.
Unless of course you were personally part of his chain of command, and thus were privy to the decision making process involving him, and thus have some first hand experience that applies?
Rick R. reply on November 11th, 2009 4:04 pm:
Skippy,
I had to walk two of my kids through clearing procedures after the command became aware of their (previous) skinhead affiliation. They were chaptered out in less than 14 days from it coming to official attention — not from anything they said or did, but because one had a Neo Nazi tatoo that came to the attention of a clerk & jerk in the shower, and the other came to his defence. (Those of us in the unit KNEW the story about the tattoo — as he said, getting oinvolved with those inbred yokels in high school was the stupidist thing he’d ever done, and he couldn’t wait to get rid of the tatoo.)
Of course, we handled it within the unit the same way we handled homosexuality. If you were a good soldier and you kept it (reasonably) quite, no problems — we’d even lie to cover your ass. If you were a shit bag, chances were someone was going to dime you out, just to get rid of you.
I remember being briefed on signs of “right wing extremism” to look for among my men, and that if I saw any, I was to report it (anonymously, if I felt “uneasy”). That was an annual NCODP briefing, and yes, the First Sergeant had to track which NCOs had had it and when. Somewhere in a box of shit in the attic, I probably still have the badly photocopied (from full color pretty tri-fold brochures) handouts.
Don;t you remember the uproar in the press? “ZOMG! There’s former skinheads, Nazis, and other right-wing undesireables in the ranks!” And there was a concerted (if quiet) effort to get them purged.
We have SPECIFICALLY been bending over backwards to avoid offending Muslims, ESPECIALLY since 9/11. I’m not blaming the President — it was just as bad under Bush.
skippy reply on November 11th, 2009 5:56 pm:
Your story, while tragic, does not actually prove your point.
All that it demonstrates is that two soldiers were kicked out for ties to white supremacy. I pointed out that I served with three soldiers that had the opposite experience.
Of our samples so far, over 50% were allowed to stay in.
“Don;t you remember the uproar in the press? “ZOMG! There’s former skinheads, Nazis, and other right-wing undesireables in the ranks!” And there was a concerted (if quiet) effort to get them purged.”
Yes I remember that. Which proves my point, inso much as that they were allowed to join in the first place. And to be fair. I don’t care that skinheads are joining because they are right-wingers. If you think that’s the problem then you are missing the point. It’s the whole “violent racists” thing that they have going on.
“I remember being briefed on signs of “right wing extremism” to look for among my men, and that if I saw any, I was to report it (anonymously, if I felt “uneasy”).”
They looked for signs of left wing extremism too. But to be fair, left wing extremists are not likely to join the military.
To be clear my issue with your statements is that right-wing and or WASP bigoted extremists are not allwoed to serve, but muslim bigoted extremists are.
I have served with Christian and Conservation bigoted extremists. (BTW there are right wing/christian bigots that are not skinheads, just FYI
And for the record the formers skinheads I served with were not bigots…they made mistakes when they were younger, and went through the same mess your sons did, but were allowed to remain in.
I also take issue with the “bending over backwards to avoid offending the muslims”. Considering how poorly the military treats all minority religions, I have trouble picturing it. Do you have any examples?
Rick R. reply on November 12th, 2009 8:20 am:
Skippy,
The two soldiers I dealt with were NOT racissts or bigots. They had FORMER ties to white supremecy jackasses, and realized that is was stupid before they joined. No, zero NADA, incidents of them even having a complaint mentioned to the chain of command or the EEO NCO until the shower incident. Which didn’t involve CONDUCT, but a tattoo the one kid had been wearing before he enlisted. (Just like there were people with former gang tattoos.) In other words, the ONLY “extremism” involved was that someone else was offended by a visual symbol that pre-dated teh wearer’s enlistment.
The other kid came to “official attention” for telling the complainer to back off — plenty of people had made stupid mistakes and gotten involved with teh worng people before starigtening out and enlisting — and he offered himself as an example.
Neither one was a right wing extremist or bigot. They merely had previous ties to it.
Yes, the military is insensitive to minority religions. Guess what? They are pretty damned insensitive to not-so-minority religions as well. As a practising Roman Catholic (at the time), I seriously resented being marched to Baptist church call (it wasn’t “non-demoniational” at all — pure Southern Baptist, Pat Robertson style), just because the Baptist chaplain was handy. (Of course I resented being ordered to go to Catholic church call in Basic, as well — but at least I had told the Army to put Roman Catholic on my dog tags.)
But I never had regular appointments with the EEO NCO to discuss my feelings — whereas my Muslim buddy DID. I believe they were quarterly — they were certainly more than annually.
He (my buddy), by the way, was the one who got me OUT of Baptist church call, becuase when I said I wouldn’t go and they started threatening me with extra duty, or even an Article 15 for failure to obey, he jumped in with the opening phrase, “As a Muslim, I refuse to go as well, and you can’t lawfully order me. . . and I want to file a complaint,” which IMMEDIATELY shut down the stupidity. Then he, I, and a couple other non-Protestants all went to worship at the Chaple of Burger King until church call was over. That was the end of forced church call attendance. (BTW — the chaplian in question? He was MORTIFIED to find out that they had been press-ganging “worshippers”, and he made a point of speaking with us to make sure we knew we COULD NOT be forced to church, but he was still available to talk to, regardless of our religious feelings or lack thereof. Nice guy, if a little credulous.)
Yes, I, too, have served with “right-wing” bigots. I’ve met a few in the service. Not many — and I filed a complaint on the ones I encountered.
I met a lot more non-right wing bigots, though. (Wouldn’t charactrerize them as “left-wing”, though — it was more of a pure race/ethinic thing, with no political framework. For that matter, the handful of white bigots were just racists, too — not really “right-wing”, just jackasses.)
There wasn’t any point in filing complaints on them, however — I SAW what happened to people who filed complaints against them. A white guy filing a grievance against a minority ended up about the same as if the white guy had had a grievance filed against THEM by a minority. No thank you — better to just suck it up and hope the offender gets promoted out early.
The only exception to that “rule” was if the white guy filed a well-founded grievance against a minority (inclduing female) soldier who had a solid history of filing BS claims at the drop of a hat. (Even then, the usual result would be NO WORSE than a counseling statement for the minority offender — usually no worse than an ass-chewing and getting stuck on the shit details for a short while. Meanwhile, I NEVER saw a “white guy” offender accused by a minority where there was ANY foundation, no matter how slender, get LESS than a counseling statement.)
I had a false EEO complaint field against me once, by a private on a work detail who didn’t know me (it was a brigade detail, he was from a different battalion). Nothing came of that one because not only didn’t the EEO NCO believe him (and that NCO and I actively disliked each other), but several of the other (same minority) privates on the detail made a point of seeking out the EEO to defend me and set the record straight — PVT Whiny was a lying sack of shit who resenting being told to get off his ass and work like the rest of the detail.
Frankly, the only “left-wing” extremist anyone was interested in actually investigating would have been an honest-to-God Communist. And while I’ve known several Communists (and as people, many of them are OK — as long as they want to VOTE Marxism in, I don’t see them as “enemies, foreign or domestic”, just “opponants”). Some of those Communists were former servicemembers. But as they even admitted — if they were Commies in uniform, they kept their damned mouths shut, so no one knew.
Skippy, I’m never going to convince you — you apparantly want names and dates of specific instances. And frankly, I didn’t care enough THEN to recall names of people I disliked after they were gone.
Nor did I get too torn up about it, because I have ALWAYS expected that the world is unfair — if you’re the one getting shit on today, well, life sucks for you. Tomorrow will probably be different, and someone else will be getting shit on instead. “The universe hates you and will do it’s best to hurt you.”
I do know what I witnessed, what I experienced.
skippy reply on November 12th, 2009 10:44 am:
I feel like you are making arguments to defend against points that I am not trying to make.
“The two soldiers I dealt with were NOT racists or bigots. They had FORMER ties to white supremacy jackasses, ”
I never said that they were racists or bigots, but I did use the point that they had ties to a racist organization.
Your story mostly proved my point. You said that the Army wouldn’t tolerate right-wing extremism but would bend over backwards to tolerate muslim extremism.
Here’s a quote in fact:
“To be clear my issue with your statements is that right-wing and or WASP bigoted extremists are not allowed to serve, but muslim bigoted extremists are.”
We have both demonstrated that the Army is tolerant of all manner of nutjobery.
I also objected to “The ONLY reason action was not taken was the top-down insistence that we needed to bend over backwards to be extra gentle to our Muslim fellows.”
Which given my experience I don’t believe is a top down directive.
When I asked for examples I wanted some proof that this was some sort of official/unofficial Army policy of treating this on Religion with kid gloves.
SO far you’ve demonstrated that you once worked for a bully, who backed down because your Muslim friend was the only one with the balls to call him out. One incident doesn’t make it Army policy.
What you have witness, and experienced (or at least shared) does not demonstrate that the statements I objected to are correct.
I’m not actually sure what you are trying to convince me of at this point, other that that Muslims get special treatment.
So to be really really clear my points were:
1) People can be crazy prejudiced/bigoted in ways that are not Muslim, and still not get kicked out. (We both proved that one)
2) It is possible that the reason that the shooter has not been cashiered out of the Army for reasons other than the fact that as a Muslim, he was handled with kid gloves, on a directive from high up in the chain of command.
I didn’t even say that this was an impossible scenerio. It may well of happened that way. I just objected to you stating that it was the only possibility.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Our MPs ARE authorized hollowpoints for Stateside duties. Just not for combat duties (or many overseas “peaceful” areas).
Whether or not their unit actually orders any hollopoints is another matter.
(CAPTCH — “Maoist lender’s” — ACORN’s favored mortgage institution.)
Reply
November 6th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
It took me a while to realize that this happened on the sole U.S. Base I’ve actually set foot in. My brain is still numb.
Soldiers on base should be armed. Especially when the nation is at war. Even this tree hugging Canadian thinks anything else is just moronic.
When I read the first article it said “Muslim soldier..” NOT American. It made me think “If this is what he’s been getting from day one, why the hell did he ever re-up?” I can’t imagine the pay or benefits are that great.. even as a Major.
Reply
Rick R. reply on November 6th, 2009 12:28 pm:
Sahdowydreamer — HE’S the one who apparantly identifies his own nationality as “Palestinian”, even though he was born here.
So, yeah — he’s not an “American soldier”, and he’s not a soldier who happens to be Muslim. He’s a soldier in the American Army who chooses to be the “Muslim soldier”.
Fuck him. Fuck his little ego. I hope he gets the death penalty — and NOT a firing squad. Execute him like any common murderer, with a needle, like a rabid dog.
Reply
Shadowydreamer reply on November 6th, 2009 3:21 pm:
As I said it was the *first* article. They didn’t even know his name at that point.
I think he gave up all rights as a HUMAN when he opened fire on his brothers and sisters.
Is it bloodthirsty to hope he gets tried by a public *Texan* jury rather than Military? Texans seem a bit faster to get rid of those who have given up their right to be on this planet.
Reply
Rick R. reply on November 6th, 2009 3:25 pm:
Unfortunately, I don;t think there is any way he’ll be tried in a civilian court — it occurred solely on base.
That’s unfortunate, since the US military hasn’t executed anyone since 1961. Hell, a guy convicted in 1988 only had his death warrant signed in 2008 (after exhausting appeals), and he got another stay of execution in November 2008. . .
Obama will NEVER sign this guy’s death warrant. But teh next president might.
Shadowydreamer reply on November 6th, 2009 3:34 pm:
I’m hoping Obama will surprise us. First politician I’ve heard in a long time admit he was wrong and change his position on something, maybe he’ll do the right thing here.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Screw it, fry him!
Reply
November 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
he was “mortified” to deploy not scared not reluctant mortified, the word means “To cause to experience shame, humiliation, or wounded pride”; humiliate.. it was not because of the work he did with returning heroes it was because he personally identified more with the enemy then with the men and woman he was dually sworn to protect.
Reply
Shadowydreamer reply on November 6th, 2009 3:23 pm:
What I can’t wrap my head around is why would such a being sign up in the first place? And STAY in suffering all the supposed abuses he suffered?
My Dad (retired RAF)’s comment was “They closed Gitmo too soon.”
Reply
Rick R. reply on November 6th, 2009 3:26 pm:
He signed up for free medical school and free training to get his board certification in his specialty taken care of.
Reply
Minty reply on November 11th, 2009 12:06 pm:
And this is why you always read the really big print on all contracts in addition to the little print. The RBP in this case reading “by the way, if we pay for all this, you work for us. Which means you’re going to be a US soldier. If you don’t like this, stand in line at the bank like everyone else.”
November 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Idiot @sshat just screwed over all the non-whacko and loyal American Muslims. Dennis Miller said it best, if you’re having these kind of thoughts you need to take one for the home team and lean into the pitch. Would have saved a lot of heartache.
Reply
November 6th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Does anyone else find it a tad disturbing that the shooter lived in Killeen, Texas?
CAPTCHA – pelvic first – Oh, that leads to all sorts of naughty thoughts.
Reply
November 7th, 2009 at 5:36 am
As of this morning (Saturday Nov. 7): the shooter has been transfered to another hospital, and is reportedly ‘paralyzed’…. GOOD! And like Shadowydreamer above, I’m hoping he’s tried by a civilian Texan jury…..
Reply
Adam reply on November 7th, 2009 6:59 am:
How did you find out he was paralyzed? If tax dollars aren’t used to support him, I think he should be left in a vegetative state because it would be worse, to him, then death. He expected to be killed, so this could be a drawn-out payback.
Reply
paula reply on November 8th, 2009 11:28 am:
hmmm, just got that ‘paralyzed’ (as well as ‘comatose’) on the news (CBS) yesterday morning; haven’t heard it since, although today they’re reporting him taken off the ventilator, still in intensive care and “not responding to questions”….. odd. Is he conscious and refusing to talk to investigators, or in a coma/otherwise unable to talk?
What a coward: joined up so the Army would pay for his medical degrees; but when that same Army wants to use what it paid for, as he agreed in advance, the chickenshit wants out, ’cause all of a sudden he disagrees with the mission. He’s a coward and a disgrace to the uniform.
Reply
Rick R. reply on November 9th, 2009 8:37 am:
I agree that the Texas civilian judicial system could process him faster and more effectively. Unfortunately, I do not see how — as far as I am aware, he committed his crimes solely within the Federal enclave of Fort Hood. I don’t see the state jursidiction.
If it was a conspiracy case, you could drag it into a state court if ANY action of the conspiracy (even a lunch meeting at Denny’s) took place off post.
Reply
November 8th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
A good article about his connections to 9/11 terrorists can be found here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html
“Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a “spiritual adviser” to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001″
May God comfort the soldiers and their familes and friends.
Reply
November 9th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Yeah,
It’s interesting that he attended the same mosque as several of the 9/11 hijackers, maintains his primary allegiance to a “homeland” other than the one he was born in and continues to live in, and has apparantly been a radical Islamic nutjob for quite some time.
Yet he waited until he was ready to deploy to a Muslim nation to start trying to get out of his commission. Eight years after it was pretty apparant that we were going to be going into the Middle East in force, and for an extended period.
Reply
November 12th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Here’s an analysis of the preventive law enforcement side, and why it did not work here:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091111_hasan_case_overt_clues_and_tactical_challenges?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091111&utm_content=readmore
Reply