Ft. Hood

[Anonymous]

So, what do people think of:

a) the fact that Hasan was transferred to Ft. Hood rather than being flagged and intervened with after a rack of issues at Walter Reed

b) how to reconcile the sensitive issue of Muslim fears of a backlash/persecution on the front pages today with legally investigating people talk/acting in crazy or threatening ways - whether Timothy McVeigh or Hasan.

I am thinking of the case of the 'flying Imams' who have received a $ settlement from the airlines for their handling of their boarding behavior. (The ones who unsettled fellow passengers who spoke Arabic with their commentary and moved around on the plane/requested seat belt extenders even though they were not over-weight. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/debate-on-post911-travel-our-view-flying-imams-settlement-carries-costs-for-air-safety.html)

Should the 'Flying Imams' have been given a pass by the airlines for their strange behavior? Should Hasan have been intervened with more forcefully for his strange behavior?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Should the 'Flying Imams' have been given a pass by the airlines for their strange behavior? Should Hasan have been intervened with more forcefully for his strange behavior?

The case of the Imams seems like a clear cut prejudice to me. Passengers were frightened by their own prejudices which led them to interpret things in the worse way. The pilot, apparently, was given lots of wrong information (or say he says). Arabs speaking Arabic, for instance, should not be suspicious.

On the other hand, by all appearances, Hasan would have welcomed intervention. He appears to be much more in the vein of Seung-Hui Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter) or the Columbine killers. He seems to be a misfit even within the Muslim community.

[Anonymous]

Right. But do people whose plane is about to take off have the luxury of time to examine the facts versus their possible prejudices so deeply? I feel like the advice these days is 'don't jump to conclusions' but what about jumping to suspicion? Women these days are being advised to not ignore that gut instinct in their belly in a dark parking lot. Should imams traveling be suspicious in and of itself? No. Should imams traveling whose statements in Arabic (translated by a passenger who spoke Arabic) were found alarming and other behaviors around the flight-requesting heavy seatbelt extenders that they placed on the ground by their seats- not have been flagged and inquired into?

I agree that Hasan sounds like a Cho. Loner, wouldn't allow his photo to be taken with women, perseverated in viewpoints that were not linked to context (ie giving his views on the Iran/Afghanistan war during mental health workshops). So why would you say, with these well-documented and observed behaviors and an open FBI investigation, he was transferred to Ft. Hood and given weapons training? And what grounds would there be for confronting him, since he had not committed a crime yet--just voiced opinions--like the imams above as they boarded the plane?

[jsteele]

The only thing odd about the Imams was the seat belt extenders. I don't know if they have an explanation for that, but they may well have. However, if they really were on the floor, why didn't the flight attendant simply offer to take them back if they weren't going to use them? Also, the idea of a couple of guys taking over a plane by swinging seatbelt extenders seems a bit far fetched.

Individuals will have prejudices and react based on those prejudices. That is simply a fact of life. But, the trained professionals that operate flights are a different story. The fact that a couple of pants wetters are scared of people different than them shouldn't be cause for removing people from flights. Also, according to the article to which you linked, the Arabic-speaker simply said the Imams had fundamentalist views. Well, what would you expect? That shouldn't be alarming.

Again, with Hasan, I don't see any need to bring his religion in it. He apparently sucked as a psychiatrist and wanted out of the Army. He didn't need to be investigated on religious grounds.

[Anonymous]

The only odd thing about the imams? Why do you need more than one odd thing when airplanes have been used as weapons to kill thousands of Americans? How could seatbelt extenders be used as weapons? How about simple box cutters? The imams were simply asked to step off the plane so that their behaviors could be assessed. Should airlines ignore bizarre behaviors? Are you for real? My husband gets asked to step aside all the time for non-bizarre behavior. Why shouldn't people be pulled for even one odd thing? The only thing about the imams is that their behaviors were so much more overt than what screeners are trained to look for (eye contact avoidance etc.) I have to wonder if they were purposely 'baiting' the system.

As to Hasan, he needed to be investigated on bizarreness grounds which included how his ideology was impacting his work performance. Simply dismissing for surface work performance him would have passed the buck as well. How would that have averted a mass killing? He needed to be deeply investigated because he was a loner, disgruntled, and had strong ideological/political/religious views that have been connected many times over to acts of terror (much like a McVeigh).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The only odd thing about the imams? Why do you need more than one odd thing when airplanes have been used as weapons to kill thousands of Americans? How could seatbelt extenders be used as weapons? How about simple box cutters? The imams were simply asked to step off the plane so that their behaviors could be assessed. Should airlines ignore bizarre behaviors? Are you for real? My husband gets asked to step aside all the time for non-bizarre behavior. Why shouldn't people be pulled for even one odd thing? The only thing about the imams is that their behaviors were so much more overt than what screeners are trained to look for (eye contact avoidance etc.) I have to wonder if they were purposely 'baiting' the system.

Look, you started this thread fairly reasonably, but now you've turned into a nut job. The seatbelt extenders is odd because we don't understand it. If the Imams have an explanation, it may not in fact be strange at all. And, as I said, they could simply have been taken away. Has your husband been forced off of an airplane? Being asked to step aside is one thing, but being kicked off an airplane altogether is completely different.

If you think that a couple of guys with box cutters could hijack an airplane today, you are even crazier than you are starting to appear. Prior to 9/11 passengers were taught to cooperate and everything would be okay. Today, those guys would get their asses kicked before they made it halfway down the aisle.

Obviously, you are trying to make the point that cultural, racial, and religious sensitivities should be ignored in favor of security. I don't think security requires that they be ignored. I also don't presume to be able to predict what would have happened would Major Hasan have been cashiered from the military. Moreover, I question your ability to do so as well.

[Anonymous]

like it or not, subsects Islam right now is a very violent religion that glorifies murder. we can't worry about the "backlash". it is entirely logical to be much more concerned about a muslim making these kind of comments than someone from another religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:like it or not, subsects Islam right now is a very violent religion that glorifies murder. we can't worry about the "backlash". it is entirely logical to be much more concerned about a muslim making these kind of comments than someone from another religion.

Statistically speaking, you are MUCH more likely to be assaulted or killed by someone you know.

To spend time worrying about things you don't understand is useless. Educate yourself, and you will fear less.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only odd thing about the imams? Why do you need more than one odd thing when airplanes have been used as weapons to kill thousands of Americans? How could seatbelt extenders be used as weapons? How about simple box cutters? The imams were simply asked to step off the plane so that their behaviors could be assessed. Should airlines ignore bizarre behaviors? Are you for real? My husband gets asked to step aside all the time for non-bizarre behavior. Why shouldn't people be pulled for even one odd thing? The only thing about the imams is that their behaviors were so much more overt than what screeners are trained to look for (eye contact avoidance etc.) I have to wonder if they were purposely 'baiting' the system.

Look, you started this thread fairly reasonably, but now you've turned into a nut job. The seatbelt extenders is odd because we don't understand it. If the Imams have an explanation, it may not in fact be strange at all. And, as I said, they could simply have been taken away. Has your husband been forced off of an airplane? Being asked to step aside is one thing, but being kicked off an airplane altogether is completely different.

If you think that a couple of guys with box cutters could hijack an airplane today, you are even crazier than you are starting to appear. Prior to 9/11 passengers were taught to cooperate and everything would be okay. Today, those guys would get their asses kicked before they made it halfway down the aisle.

Obviously, you are trying to make the point that cultural, racial, and religious sensitivities should be ignored in favor of security. I don't think security requires that they be ignored. I also don't presume to be able to predict what would have happened would Major Hasan have been cashiered from the military. Moreover, I question your ability to do so as well.

Fair enough. You make a valid point---yes, passengers would tackle said person. Does that mean we should let everyone who is a possible threat board a plane and leave it to the passengers to 'handle'?

Now that you have assessed me as a nut job, allow me to assess you. You are apparently agreeing with me. "I don't think security requires that (cultural, racial and religious sensitivities) should be ignored". Great. I don't either. I do wonder if the fact that Hasan was a Muslim is why the buck (him) was passed to Ft. Hood instead of being tackled right here in DC. There, I said it. I don't think it is an unreasonable nut-job thought. The pendulum of PC and civil liberty is so sprung right now I actually think people are scared to name the reality they see unfolding in front of them for fear of accusations of discrimination etc. I will be very interested to see the chain of command here investigated and what they have to say. Your thoughts?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Now that you have assessed me as a nut job, allow me to assess you. You are apparently agreeing with me. "I don't think security requires that (cultural, racial and religious sensitivities) should be ignored". Great. I don't either. I do wonder if the fact that Hasan was a Muslim is why the buck (him) was passed to Ft. Hood instead of being tackled right here in DC. There, I said it. I don't think it is an unreasonable nut-job thought. The pendulum of PC and civil liberty is so sprung right now I actually think people are scared to name the reality they see unfolding in front of them for fear of accusations of discrimination etc. I will be very interested to see the chain of command here investigated and what they have to say. Your thoughts?

I don't think for a minute that cultural, racial, or religious sensitivities prevented Hasan from being handled properly. I think the explanation is very simple. We have two wars and an upsurge in mental issues among soldiers. There is a shortage of psychiatrists. Hasan was a warm body. The military has been dropping standards across the board. There has been more than one case of mentally unbalanced soldiers being sent into action. The military needed a psychiatrist in the field and it didn't matter if the only one available was a loony tune loaner who needed to visit a psychiatrist himself.

[Anonymous]

We do not have a full understanding of the facts of the case when it comes to the Flying Imams. And we won't, because it will never go to trial.

I think the facts of the case are important but they are not agreed upon.

If a bunch of Texans wearing ornamental belt buckles clasped hands and started praying "Dear Jesus, ...." and then spread out into empty aisles of the plane for more legroom, I doubt anyone would have looked at that as threatening, even though most of the elements of the story would be there. (If they were Vermonters, they might have been praying for the end of the unjust war in Iraq as well.) So it is easy to see how the actions may have appeared sinister because of the culture and religion involved.

On the other hand, the activity may have had some legitimately suspicious elements to it. It is unclear that we know exactly what was being said by the clerics, and I would really love to hear their version of the seatbelt extender thing. Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to get it.

Lastly I would like to say if the handling of this individual was too light, the military has also overreached in the case of others. Remember the Gitmo espionage cases that were all essentially dropped? I recall the cases of Ahmad Al Halabi and James Yee, who did nothing of consequence other than attract attention for speaking arabic to each other. I think Yee was aquitted altogether, and Al Halabi pled guilty to a minor charge of taking a piece of classified information off base in his laptop, which is not right but happens accidentally all the time.

[Anonymous]

The military had only one psychiatrist available???

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The military had only one psychiatrist available???

Well, let's just say there is a really big shortage:

"But with the U.S. fighting two wars, an acute shortage of trained personnel has left these therapists emotional drained and overworked, with limited time to prepare for their own war deployments."

...

"But he said that still leaves the service with a shortfall of more than 330 specialists, which is a gap that will grow to more than 500 if the Army follows through on recommendations to put uniformed providers in every brigade."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fort_hood_stressed_out_psychiatrists

[Anonymous]

I agree with JSteele here for once, but I think it is missing the larger point. To me, it is very silly to say things like "we may never know the reason for this" or "don't jump to conclusions".

Obviously this was a very damaged person who became even more dangerous because of his fanatical faith. To say his religion had nothing to do with the shooting is just burying your head in the sand. But what to do about it? All Muslims are not like that, Muslims are a growing part of our country and we can not alienate them, the true Islam faith doesn't support these acts ....

my take is we obviously continue to welcome muslims unconditionally into the armed services and into our society, we pressure Islamic leaders (nationally and globally) to speak out against suicide bombing and actions like this and not worry so much about being PC when tragedies like this unfold. we need to find out if any mosques in this country are encouraging this behavior.

my view would be the exact same if christians or jews or anyone else started to legitimize murder/suicide as part of the struggle. Look at the demonstrations in Palestine where little children are dressed in costume as suicide bombers. the suicide bombers need to be shunned not looked to as heroes. this aspect of the Muslim culture needs to change. How to do that, I do not know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with JSteele here for once, but I think it is missing the larger point. To me, it is very silly to say things like "we may never know the reason for this" or "don't jump to conclusions".

Obviously this was a very damaged person who became even more dangerous because of his fanatical faith. To say his religion had nothing to do with the shooting is just burying your head in the sand. But what to do about it? All Muslims are not like that, Muslims are a growing part of our country and we can not alienate them, the true Islam faith doesn't support these acts ....

my take is we obviously continue to welcome muslims unconditionally into the armed services and into our society, we pressure Islamic leaders (nationally and globally) to speak out against suicide bombing and actions like this and not worry so much about being PC when tragedies like this unfold. we need to find out if any mosques in this country are encouraging this behavior.

my view would be the exact same if christians or jews or anyone else started to legitimize murder/suicide as part of the struggle. Look at the demonstrations in Palestine where little children are dressed in costume as suicide bombers. the suicide bombers need to be shunned not looked to as heroes. this aspect of the Muslim culture needs to change. How to do that, I do not know.

Agreed. However, I don't think that when people act flaky --like this guy, or the flying imams--they should be given a pass from preliminary or, if necessitated, full investigation just because there are lots of 'good Muslims'. Also, requests to not deploy are turned down every day--not b/cause the military 'needs warm bodies' but because when servicemembers sign on the line they incur an obligation. The military then holds them to it. The question is not whether he should have deployed, but if someone could have flagged him earlier as a psycho-terror-bot in the making. Deployed or not deployed, he was clearly a danger being shuffled around. What were the warning signals of this atrocity, who overlooked them, and why? There is plenty to be learned from this.