obama covers for the muslim murderer

[Tahoma 2,292]

Yep. Just goes to show that the conservatives groups jumps the gun.

Oh yeah... and 13 people died on the libs watch. So I guess that was the right way to handle it.

Of course, we don't want to talk about how George Bush "handled" Hasan any more than we want to talk about how George Bush "handled" the National Intelligence Estimate from August 2001 warning him of a terrorist attack on the U.S. And that's OK because he's not a real conservative, he's a RINO.

[Peikko 1,575]

If a zealot doesn't affiliate to any recognizable organization it's not very easy to 'cull' them from the army or any where else. (That's not even taking into account the possibility of any mental health issues, although there is no evidence at this time that this particular individual suffered from any). To be able to take action an individual has to do something that is considered threatening or dangerous.

It appears the first time this individual did so, he killed 13 people and injured scores of others. It's terrible and tragic.

Thats a great "wait until he kills people before we do anything" mentality. I'm sure the families of the dead agree with you.

This is how your society works Joe. Judicial action can't be taken until someone provides sufficient evidence that they will actually proceed on a malicious course of action. Simply denouncing the president verbally is not enough to get locked up.

Hasan was investigated & deemed not a threat (obviously the wrong conclusion). The question here is whether or not the investigators followed procedure and if so should the procedures be changed to prevent this type of incident in the future. Making ignorant comments and/or partisan rhetoric serve absolutely no purpose here.

I am sure I wish the investigators and others all the help they can get with being able to take preventative actions in future. What I foresee however is that this can't be done without ignoring fundamental rights of the individual once they join certain organizations. This might be the 'greater price to pay' but then again, say for example it becomes a dismissable offense to verbally critisize the government and the president. What then? Is the argument going to be that doing so is acceptable if one is a christian but not if one is a muslim?

[rebeccajo 14]

If a zealot doesn't affiliate to any recognizable organization it's not very easy to 'cull' them from the army or any where else. (That's not even taking into account the possibility of any mental health issues, although there is no evidence at this time that this particular individual suffered from any). To be able to take action an individual has to do something that is considered threatening or dangerous.

It appears the first time this individual did so, he killed 13 people and injured scores of others. It's terrible and tragic.

Thats a great "wait until he kills people before we do anything" mentality. I'm sure the families of the dead agree with you.

Um - Joseph - this is one of the reasons the Constitution was written.

Due process and all that.

Edited November 16, 2009 by rebeccajo

[rebeccajo 14]

I am sure I wish the investigators and others all the help they can get with being able to take preventative actions in future. What I foresee however is that this can't be done without ignoring fundamental rights of the individual once they join certain organizations. This might be the 'greater price to pay' but then again, say for example it becomes a dismissable offense to verbally critisize the government and the president. What then? Is the argument going to be that doing so is acceptable if one is a christian but not if one is a muslim?

Slippery slope.

[Darnell 8,478]

political stagecraft? yikes. IMO, when it's successful, (after all the yelling n screaming) closed hearings get initiated, outside legal counsel is engaged, and lots of fed ppl lose their jobs or get re-assigned to a less critical posting.

[alienlovechild 75]

Yep. Just goes to show that the conservatives groups jumps the gun.

Oh yeah... and 13 people died on the libs watch. So I guess that was the right way to handle it.

Of course, we don't want to talk about how George Bush "handled" Hasan any more than we want to talk about how George Bush "handled" the National Intelligence Estimate from August 2001 warning him of a terrorist attack on the U.S. And that's OK because he's not a real conservative, he's a RINO.

That the same thing as the State Department warning of a terrorist attack against U.S. interests in East Asia in August, 2001? I read that one because I was living in Taiwan at the time.

Please post that link about the attack the WTC and the Pentagon from the August 2001 NIE report. That terrorist attack on the U.S. really narrows it down doesn't it?

[Peikko 1,575]

I am sure I wish the investigators and others all the help they can get with being able to take preventative actions in future. What I foresee however is that this can't be done without ignoring fundamental rights of the individual once they join certain organizations. This might be the 'greater price to pay' but then again, say for example it becomes a dismissable offense to verbally critisize the government and the president. What then? Is the argument going to be that doing so is acceptable if one is a christian but not if one is a muslim?

Slippery slope.

A real one and a very dangerous one at that. Do these people not realize that by silencing the muslim extremists, they risk silencing themselves?

Edited November 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[alienlovechild 75]

I am sure I wish the investigators and others all the help they can get with being able to take preventative actions in future. What I foresee however is that this can't be done without ignoring fundamental rights of the individual once they join certain organizations. This might be the 'greater price to pay' but then again, say for example it becomes a dismissable offense to verbally critisize the government and the president. What then? Is the argument going to be that doing so is acceptable if one is a christian but not if one is a muslim?

Slippery slope.

A real one and a very dangerous one at that. Do these people not realize that by silencing the muslim extremists, they risk silencing themselves?

I thought we already went down the slippery slope because. . .ah. . . it's slippery and there's no easy way back.

[nowhereman 1]

I am sure I wish the investigators and others all the help they can get with being able to take preventative actions in future. What I foresee however is that this can't be done without ignoring fundamental rights of the individual once they join certain organizations. This might be the 'greater price to pay' but then again, say for example it becomes a dismissable offense to verbally critisize the government and the president. What then? Is the argument going to be that doing so is acceptable if one is a christian but not if one is a muslim?

Slippery slope.

A real one and a very dangerous one at that. Do these people not realize that by silencing the muslim extremists, they risk silencing themselves?

I thought we already went down the slippery slope because. . .ah. . . it's slippery and there's no easy way back.

Well clearly the goal is to balance national security & individual freedoms, but what that looks like is of course the heart of the debate. Personally I would rather err on the side of caution & apologize for stepping on someone's toes vs. trying so hard to protect individual rights that another incident occurs that could have been prevented. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it may have contributed to determining that Hasan was not a threat.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am sure I wish the investigators and others all the help they can get with being able to take preventative actions in future. What I foresee however is that this can't be done without ignoring fundamental rights of the individual once they join certain organizations. This might be the 'greater price to pay' but then again, say for example it becomes a dismissable offense to verbally critisize the government and the president. What then? Is the argument going to be that doing so is acceptable if one is a christian but not if one is a muslim?

Slippery slope.

A real one and a very dangerous one at that. Do these people not realize that by silencing the muslim extremists, they risk silencing themselves?

I thought we already went down the slippery slope because. . .ah. . . it's slippery and there's no easy way back.

Well clearly the goal is to balance national security & individual freedoms, but what that looks like is of course the heart of the debate. Personally I would rather err on the side of caution & apologize for stepping on someone's toes vs. trying so hard to protect individual rights that another incident occurs that could have been prevented. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it may have contributed to determining that Hasan was not a threat.

The biggest question I have is why was he allowed to practice psychiatry when his performance was considered so poor that he had to be assigned to a position where others could cover for his incompetence? Surely this is pertinent? Well, assuming the report that this is the case is true.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[nowhereman 1]

The biggest question I have is why was he allowed to practice psychiatry when his performance was considered so poor that he had to be assigned to a position where others could cover for his incompetence? Surely this is pertinent? Well, assuming the report that this is the case is true.

Simple... the military pays a lot to train doctors & there is a shortage of them, so even the marginal ones are retained. Not saying I agree with this, just stating the facts.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There was a man (Buford Furrow Jr.) who stormed into a Jewish Daycare in Los Angeles several years ago opening fire and killing several small children. He had a history of mental illness and afflictions with White Supremists, and was on probation when he bought several guns, including an Uzi and a 9mm handgun.

What I find interesting....especially from big 2nd Amendment advocate like Justashooter, is that he's more than willing to circumvent other constitutional protections to potentially stop future attacks like the one at Fort Hood, but is unwilling to ever compromise on the 2nd Amendment.

Statistically speaking - more peopel die from gunshot wounds than any threat of domestic terrorism, real or imagined. For those who demand we do more than we are currently doing against such a threat - what is their answer for gun deaths in America?

[Peikko 1,575]

The biggest question I have is why was he allowed to practice psychiatry when his performance was considered so poor that he had to be assigned to a position where others could cover for his incompetence? Surely this is pertinent? Well, assuming the report that this is the case is true.

Simple... the military pays a lot to train doctors & there is a shortage of them, so even the marginal ones are retained. Not saying I agree with this, just stating the facts.

So that being said, the chances are that this expensive training and shortage of medics contributed far more to the fact that he was not let go, than officers being too 'pc'? That would be by intuition at any rate.

[nowhereman 1]

The biggest question I have is why was he allowed to practice psychiatry when his performance was considered so poor that he had to be assigned to a position where others could cover for his incompetence? Surely this is pertinent? Well, assuming the report that this is the case is true.

Simple... the military pays a lot to train doctors & there is a shortage of them, so even the marginal ones are retained. Not saying I agree with this, just stating the facts.

So that being said, the chances are that this expensive training and shortage of medics contributed far more to the fact that he was not let go, than officers being too 'pc'? That would be by intuition at any rate.

I have seen substandard officers get by many times in the Army & I don't think any of them were Muslims. Now I have heard in the news that the investigators (and Hasan's superiors) didn't want to appear that they were singling out Major Hasan because of his religion. I suspect both factors were involved, but IMO the supply/demand of shrinks played a larger role in retaining Hasan.

[Peikko 1,575]

The biggest question I have is why was he allowed to practice psychiatry when his performance was considered so poor that he had to be assigned to a position where others could cover for his incompetence? Surely this is pertinent? Well, assuming the report that this is the case is true.

Simple... the military pays a lot to train doctors & there is a shortage of them, so even the marginal ones are retained. Not saying I agree with this, just stating the facts.

So that being said, the chances are that this expensive training and shortage of medics contributed far more to the fact that he was not let go, than officers being too 'pc'? That would be by intuition at any rate.

I have seen substandard officers get by many times in the Army & I don't think any of them were Muslims. Now I have heard in the news that the investigators (and Hasan's superiors) didn't want to appear that they were singling out Major Hasan because of his religion. I suspect both factors were involved, but IMO the supply/demand of shrinks played a larger role in retaining Hasan.

That is a huge issue bearing in mind such aspects as the suicide rate among regulars and the known traumatic after effects of deployment, particularly in conflicts where goals are hard to identify. This is something that really should be addressed, and properly, never mind whether muslim fanatics are infiltrating the army because of racial sensitivity. Of course, that aspect should be properly investigated as well.