10 Nov

“That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?”

                                       

Clueless Chris Matthews:

“See – we have a problem,” Matthews said. “How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he’s an Islamist until he’s made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?’ That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?”

I love it how Dr. Jasser is trying to get a word in, and the host just goes on and on….and on with his blathering ramble. Just unbelievable to watch this news guy tie himself up in knots, trying to rationalize and come to terms with the fact that Islam played an influential role in Nidal Hassan’s murderous act of terrorism, and all the signs for taking preemptive action were present, yet ignored for fear of being branded racist/bigoted/intolerant/discriminating/etc. Thank you PC!

Here are 34 Clues for Chris Matthews:

1. At the shooting, Hasan first bowed his head in prayer and then shouted “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) as he shot over 50 soldiers in a calm and measured manner.

2. Store video the morning of the shooting shows Hasan wearing a traditional Muslim WHITE robe and hat. He had began wearing Arabic/Muslim-style clothing in recent weeks.

3. Hasan handed out Qurans to his neighbors a few days before and the day of the shooting, including giving a Quran to his neighbor at 9 am the day of the shooting, telling her, “I’m going to do good work for God” before leaving for the base. Here is the AP photograph taken on Friday, Nov 6 in Killeen, Texas showing the Quran and the business card that Hasan gave to his neighbor the day of the shooting.

4. A recent convert to Islam described how he frequently prayed with Hasan at the town mosque after Hasan was deployed to Fort Hood in July. They last worshipped together at predawn prayers on the day of the massacre when Hasan “appeared relaxed and not in any way troubled or nervous.”

5. Hasan told the convert that the ‘war on terror’ was really a war against Islam. Hasan also expressed anti-Jewish sentiments and defended suicide bombings.

6. During dinner the night before the shooting, Hasan felt he should not go to Afghanistan, that he was supposed to quit. “In the Koran, it says you are not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christians, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”

7. Hasan’s deceased parents were Palestinians immigrants from the West Bank/Jordan. Hasan’s father was 16 years old when he immigrated to America and later operated a bar and grill in Roanoke, VA.

8. On a form Hasan filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as “American” but as “Palestinian.” Yet he was born in Arlington, Virginia on 8 Sep 1970. (See Allegiance in a Time of Globalization, DOD PERSEREC, Dec 2008)

9. Hasan has family in the Middle East, including a grandfather, uncle and cousins which he and they would visit each other.

10. Hasan’s cousin in the Palestinian city of Ramallah, Mohammad Munif Abdallah Hasan, said the Army major had wanted to leave the military because he felt disrespected over his religion.

11. His cousin said: “If he had killed one or two, I could say that he was defending himself. I could say that there could have been a problem between two sides which led to the use of weapons.”

12. Hasan visited websites espousing radical Islamist ideas.

13. Hasan made these kinds of statements to coworkers: Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military. Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors. He spoke favorably about people who strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.

14. Hasan gave a presentation to military masters degree students in which he argued the war on terrorism was a war against Islam. This was in an environmental health class at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, MD. When challenged about what does his topic has to do with environmental health, Hasan became agitated, sweaty, nervous and emotional.

15. Hasan “made himself a lightning rod by making his extreme views known to everyone.”

16. Hasan was “put on probation early in his postgraduate work” and was “disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues.”

17. Hasan was a “very devout” member of and daily visitor to the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md. Attended prayers at least once a day, seven days a week. (See Saudi Publications On Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques. Important reading for security professionals)

18. A friend who also attended the mosque said, “He was my role model when it came to the Islam life. He was so devout. He would come to the early morning prayers — even in the summer when it began at 4 am or 5 am, the early prayers I wouldn’t go to, he would be there.”

19. Hasan wrote “Allah” on his door in Silver Spring, MD according to his neighbor.

20. Hasan wrote an internet posting defending suicide bombers: “…..Suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory…..”

21. At the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, MD, he asked for feedback about a talk he had prepared for his Army supervisors on the role of Muslims in the military. Hasan argued that if military duties contradicted a soldier’s religion, the soldier should be released from duty.

22. After 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Hasan seemed to grow more disenchanted with his duties. “He did not talk war or politics, but he did tell me once the war started that what he worried most about was having to fight against other Muslims. He did not feel it was right.”—Friend at Muslim community center

23. Hasan attended two matchmaking events at his Muslim community center to find a “good Muslim woman” for his wife but he “had too many conditions” for his match . He wanted a very religious wife who adheres to the Quran, wore the hijab and prayed five times a day. First preference was an Arab woman followed by someone of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi descent.

24. Hasan avoided contact with his female coworkers. Refused to be photographed for an office Christmas photo since women were in the photo.

25. Hasan worshiped at the Texas mosque each day at 6 am, and often prayed there five times a day, especially during the holy month of Ramadan. (See Saudi Publications On Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques)

26. Hasan had been mentoring an 18-year old Catholic man on the ways of Islam. Only once during their 12 meetings did Hasan NOT talk about religion. Hasan told this man that Muslims shouldn’t be in the U.S. military, because obviously Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims. He told him not to join the Army.

27. At the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, Hasan told his fellow military master degree students, “I’m a Muslim first and an American second.” (See Allegiance in a Time of Globalization, DOD PERSEREC, Dec 2008)

28. Hasan gave an hour-long talk on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC. He said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. That non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.

29. Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about Islam.

30. During a conversation with a leader of the Texas mosque he attended, Hasan seemed obsessed with the question of what to tell Muslim soliders about fighting fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

31. Hasan attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists.

32. This mosque was led by radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki said to be a ‘spiritual adviser’ to three of the hijackers who attacked America on 9/11. al-Awlaki was born in the US but now lives in Yemen. He is an al-Qaeda supporter who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures on Islam.

33. Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas.

34. Today (9 November 09), al-Awlaki wrote on his blog a post titled, “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing.”

“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.
…..Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.
The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former.
The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right — rather the duty — to fight against American tyranny.
Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.
Allah(swt) says: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment……May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Ameen.”

Among the reader comments to his post:

• “May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act.”
• “That’s the first thing that came to my mind, may Allah reward this man for his bravery. Allah has enlightened him with his duty unlike the hypocrites of this age and time. May he be accepted as a shaheed.”
• “May Allah give brother Nidal ease and may Allah give pain to the enemies.”

34 “clues”, probably more to come.

Incidentally, Zuhdi Jasser, who considers himself a devout Muslim, believes in the virtues of profiling:


If more Muslims had the same pro-active attitude as AIFD, rabidly attacking Islamism and political Islam rather than being apologists and deniers for it and playing the victim card, it would go a long way to quelling some of the anti-Islam sentiments. Instead, those Muslims who fear a backlash only encourage such backlash to occur every time they make excuses for Islamic terror and deny that their faith has any role to play in this.

This entry was posted in Fanatical Islam, Homegrown Jihadi, Islam, Law Enforcement, Media, MSM Bias, War On Terror. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 at 9:50 am
| 151 views

44 Responses to “That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?”

  1. Patvann says: 1

    Gawd how I hate Matthews…

    ReplyReply
  2. Davey says: 2

    Apparently calling Al Qaeda is only a crime if they call you back collect on a Govt. phone and you accept the charges.

    ReplyReply
  3. Slatrat says: 3

    This story gives me a tingling feeling that goes up and down my leg. Also great news on Drudge just now…Glen Beck bagged another Libbie…Anita Dunn to resign!

    ReplyReply
  4. Tim says: 4

    Well, it’s been a while since I was in, and I don’t have the UCMJ handy, but I’ll take a stab at it.

    Al Qaeda is our enemy. Our military is fighting Al Qaeda. Seems to me that if you’re in said military, and you are calling the aforementioned enemy, then yeah, it is illegal.

    ReplyReply
  5. It would seem to me that communicating with al Qaeda would at the least qualify as espionage, would likely qualify as sedition, and could qualify as Treason.

    So, yeah, that would be illegal, Chrissy.

    ReplyReply
  6. firefirefire says: 6

    Chrissy,Chrissy………relax,,,,,,take a deeeeep breath,,,,there now,let it out slowly….in case you forgot during the previous eight years that the former administration kept you safe there in the homeland,there have still been people trying to kill Americans because,,,well they’re Americans,,don’t get yourself all wound up over it,,,they’ll still want to kill you after this administration that “it’s your job to make work” leaves office.
    As the recent terror atack shows; The One who makes your leg tingle Chrissy, hasn’t been doing a very good job of connecting the dots.
    Don’t be afraid of calling a terrorist; a terrorist Chrissy.
    It’s what they are.

    ReplyReply
  7. marbleblaster says: 7

    Man, did he let on the guest just to be a listener to his ramble or what?

    ReplyReply
  8. Wordsmith says: 8

    Just updated the post with CJ’s list of 34 clues.

    ReplyReply
  9. repsac3 says: 9

    Mathews’ wording is moronic, though technically, I suspect he is correct. There is no law against calling a person suspected or known to be an al Queda member. If there is a legal responsibility at all, it’s contingent on what’s discussed, not on the call being made in the first place. In that sense, Mathews’ question is a good one; Does the right to express unpopular or even violent thoughts stop, and become treasonous or criminal–and if so, when?–or does a person have to do something before government agents can restrict his movements?

    I’m curious as to whether you agree with Dr. Jasser’s answer to the question (in the part of the video that unfortunately got cut off) that, while there should’ve been more done by the military, given what they knew about this guy, freedom is one of America’s most powerful assets in this fight, and no, we cannot start restricting the freedoms of muslims (or anyone else) for the thoughts they express, even if they are anti-American.

    Given what the government and the army seem to’ve known about this guy, at what point should they’ve done something, and what should they’ve done?

    I’m all for having and enforcing policies and procedures to restrict potential & serving military who have a history of expressing or currently express extremist rhetoric of any kind, from fundamentalist islamists to white supremacy to Fred Phelps-style homophobes. While the response to such speech on the street should always be more speech, I believe that military cohesion, discipline, and security requires more from those in uniform than it does for the general public.

    ReplyReply
  10. Pingback: Vocal Minority

  11. RESPAC,

    We are talking about a commissioned officer of the United States Army. One cannot be commissioned unless one qualifies for at least a SECRET level of clearance.

    The Armed Forces of the Untied States are engaged in ongoing combat with al Qaeda.

    Unless he was accepting a parlay (and since he was not a commanding officer nor acting as a defacto commanding officer) or was authorized by his chain of command to open communications with this enemy, his so doing was a violation of the UCMJ and the National Security Act of 1948.

    I’m sure those charges will be included in his trial by Court Martial for Murder and Attempted Murder. Once that trial is completed and sentence passed they can move on to the bonus Treason charge in Federal Court.

    I fully expect this perpetrator will have been tried by Court Martial and be under a sentence of death by this time next year, and that said sentence will have been carried out by November of 2011 unless the Feds do try him for Treason subsequent to his trial by Court Martial.

    ReplyReply
  12. Wordsmith says: 11

    @repsac3:

    Mathews’ wording is moronic, though technically, I suspect he is correct. There is no law against calling a person suspected or known to be an al Queda member. If there is a legal responsibility at all, it’s contingent on what’s discussed, not on the call being made in the first place. In that sense, Mathews’ question is a good one; Does the right to express unpopular or even violent thoughts stop, and become treasonous or criminal–and if so, when?–or does a person have to do something before government agents can restrict his movements?

    The point I take away from it isn’t about legality but upon reading and not ignoring the signposts. Isolated, and given context, it might not in itself be damning; but it does offer a clue and warrant further investigation until the only logical conclusion is, “yes, he’s a threat to American society.”

    I’m curious as to whether you agree with Dr. Jasser’s answer to the question (in the part of the video that unfortunately got cut off) that, while there should’ve been more done by the military, given what they knew about this guy, freedom is one of America’s most powerful assets in this fight, and no, we cannot start restricting the freedoms of muslims (or anyone else) for the thoughts they express, even if they are anti-American.

    I’m curious to know whether you agree with AIFD in the 2nd video, that there should be profiling and screening of Muslim Americans.

    ReplyReply
  13. Larry Sheldon says: 12

    This is going to sound like a hostile question, and maybe it is, so we don’t need to discuss it much….

    Is it not, prima facia, proof of insanity when somebody agrees to be “interviewed” by people like Leg Thrill, or the Open Old Hen Coop?

    ReplyReply
  14. Patvann says: 13

    Here’s the thing…

    Obama and his leg-humping media will NEVER call this act: “Terrorism”.

    The reason is a simple one. If they call it what it is, then they are admitting that Bush kept us safe for 2000 some-odd days, and the “counter” just got reset under Obama’s watch.

    ReplyReply
  15. Patvann,

    It was not and is not “Terrorism.”

    The targets were combatants.

    It was murder. If the perpetrator was acting as an agent of al Qaeda it was an act of war and a war crime.

    Since it did not primarily target non-combatants it was not terrorism.

    There is more than enough to send this miserable piece of excrement to the execution chamber as it stands. If the Army retains jurisdiction and tries him at a Court Martial, I expect him to be convicted and under sentence of death within a year from the date of the crime, and I further expect the sentence to be carried out within two years of the crime (absent a subsequent Federal prosecution).

    ReplyReply
  16. repsac3 says: 15

    I’m curious to know whether you agree with AIFD in the 2nd video, that there should be profiling and screening of Muslim Americans.

    I hadn’t watched that one, (or seen the 34 clues you added) before I posted my last comment, but no, I don’t believe in screening Muslim-Americans (or anyone else) based on faith or ethnic heritage alone. Rather, (& as I said) I think everyone entering or serving in the military ought to be screened for extremist views and deeds, at the first indication of them, if not routinely. If the goal is to reduce violent acts based on extreme or antisocial beliefs, we ought to screen for the beliefs, not all who practice the faith some of ‘em claim to be following… …not even if some members of that faith would willingly submit. (If there’s some benefit in it–I recall there was some talk of it for frequent airline passengers, so that they could get through the checkpoints faster, though I confess to not knowing whether it was ever put in place–I’m all for doing extensive background checks on anyone who, like Dr. Jasser, is willing to submit to them, but no, I don’t think screening all ___ (fill in political/social/ethnic/religious group there) without more cause than their membership in the aforementioned p/s/e/r group, should be US or military policy. I think american citizens should have to do more than “serve while muslim” to elicit more scrutiny than the rest of us.)

    Yes, those with security clearances ought to face more scrutiny (at the very least) when contacting the enemy, so yes, if that isn’t against the law, it probably ought to be. (Though I’m most curious as to what the communication consisted of, and whether the army hurt their case as regards that possible charge, by not acting on it when the contact was disclosed to them over a year ago.)

    I understand that your 34 clues are meant to be taken as a group, but even so, the ones that suggest being “devout” or “attending services daily” can be taken as warning signs, are a tad offensive (and should be to anyone who had a devout (generally irish catholic or hispanic, in my experiences, though I suspect there are other backgrounds just as devout) aunt or grandmother, who never ever missed morning mass. Applied to any other faith–but especially the ones most cited as being a part of America’s heritage–being “devout” is something to aspire to and take as a compliment. Hell, even Dr. Jasser claims to be devout…

    ReplyReply
  17. Pingback: The “C” in CNN, and Manji, Manji Manji again…. — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami

  18. Patvann says: 16

    @Rodney

    I suppose that within the legal definition set by Congress, you are correct. I stand corrected. Webster’s on the otherhand, still uses the standard “violence for political-aims” definition.

    In playing “devils advocate”, does the “combatant” in-question mean anyone under contract, or does said combatant need to be in-theater?

    I am afraid I don’t share your outlook as to when he’ll get convicted/sentenced. I fear it will end up as a political football.

    ReplyReply
  19. Hell yes, screen them – and screen them thoroughly and before they can commit another terrorist act on American military bases.

    And as to those who described him as a very devout Muslim – devout Muslims don’t drink alcohol (as Hasan did), nor do they go to clubs and get lap dances (which Hasan also did).

    As to Chris Matthews: he is a boil on the butt of humanity!

    ReplyReply
  20. Larry Sheldon says: 18

    Seems like an act designed to instill terror is a terrorist act.

    Which law has precedence is in fact situation dependent.

    But that really pints to one of the real problems–our propensity to refine law and microlegislate every tiny aspect of life.

    It used to be that killing people (with out a government license) was a crime, as was conspiracy to commit a crime.

    What difference does it make to the dead people why they were killed?

    ReplyReply
  21. yonason says: 19

    CRHIS MATTHEWS = C.M. = CRANIAL MALFUNCTION

    Maybe MSNBC can replace him with something more advanced? You, know, like a petri dish of rat neurons.

    ReplyReply
  22. Madalyn says: 20

    CM is a joke. He acts like he wants to interview someone, but if they have a differing opinion, he talks on and on and on so they can’t get a word in edgewise. That is why he boasts that nobody has ever offered a differing opinion. They do, he just doesn’t allow them to say it. What a bloviating POS. Can’t they get someone on the air to ask a question, then shut up so the guest can answer?
    Madalyn

    ReplyReply
  23. Patvann says: 21

    Ummm, Rodney?

    Webster’s: ter·ror·ism
    The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

    Ethnic separatist violence in the 1930s provoked the League of Nations, formed after World War I to encourage world stability and peace, to define terrorism for the first time, as:

    All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.

    The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:

    The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

    The FBI defines terrorism as:

    The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

    United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

    (d) Definitions
    As used in this section—
    (1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
    (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
    (3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
    (4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
    (5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
    (A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
    (i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
    (ii) as a transit point; and
    (B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
    (i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
    (ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
    (iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

    So there it is…and I didn’t include all the international versions. If we assume he’ll get tried under USMJ, I think I can safely call him a terrorist again.

    ReplyReply
  24. Timothy says: 22

    Chris must get a tingle up his leg when a Jihadist kills someone

    ReplyReply
  25. what ever he is no one can call him a good guy in islam ,where ever islam lives,when anyone is given the priviledge to be admited in a free country he and family should be feeling oblige to answer the call to defend their new permenant country ahead of any belieif.thank you.

    ReplyReply
  26. God, you’ve got Repsac3 polluting your threads!

    Man, Word, what a headache!

    ReplyReply
  27. Pingback: Um, is a calling card enough evidence? | The Lonely Conservative

  28. Buffalobob says: 25

    Chris Mathews tingly feeling up his leg may have extended to his brain. And god (can I say that? ) forbid that we profile someone who happens to be of the islamic faith and exposes the virtues of killing infidels. Freedom of speech my ass. When did we suspend the laws against, sedition, violent overthrow of our gov. and treason?

    ReplyReply
  29. Pingback: Tweets that mention “That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?” -- Topsy.com

  30. Larry Sheldon says: 26

    Yes you can say “god” but in this context you should write “God”.

    Illegal to call up al-qaeda? Yeah, I’d say reason, sedition, and such are illegal.

    The pity is that it isn’t _our_ firing squad that handles it.

    ReplyReply
  31. repsac3 says: 27

    God, you’ve got Repsac3 polluting your threads!

    Grow up, Douglas… At least my comments are on topic (though not furthering the discussion the way I hoped they would.)

    Am I really the only one who thinks military screenings should be based on exhibited attitudes and behaviors, rather than on ethnicity or religion alone? Is no one worried that a policy that allows folks to dig through the lives of people of that guy’s religion paves the way for screening everyone of your religion? Wouldn’t the costs of screening everyone of a given faith or ethnicity, without underlying cause be prohibitive? Wouldn’t it cause people of the muslim faith or of arab/persian descent not to enlist, taking away much needed assets, like servicemen who speak the language? Isn’t having muslims in our armed forces and treating them no better or worse than any other Americans beneficial as evidence of what America is all about (and wouldn’t the act of treating them differently be used as evidence by our enemies that America is not the land of the free it claims to be?)

    And god (can I say that? ) forbid that we profile someone who happens to be of the islamic faith and exposes the virtues of killing infidels.

    We absolutely should profile anyone who expresses the virtues of killing infidels (or blacks, or jews, or abortion doctors, or any other group aside the enemy), in the military, at least. My beef is only with profiling everyone who happens to be of the islamic faith, regardless of how honorably they’ve lived their life up to now and how patriotic they are.

    ReplyReply
  32. Razorgirl says: 28

    That tingle in Chrissy leg has now gone to his brain. Why do they give this guy air time? Why do they give him air?

    ReplyReply
  33. Aqua says: 29

    @ repsac3

    Mathews’ wording is moronic, though technically, I suspect he is correct. There is no law against calling a person suspected or known to be an al Queda member.

    Maybe for a civilian. Hasan was active duty military. All military members must report any contact with enemy agents or suspected enemy agents.

    When I was in the Air Force stationed in Okinawa, I was talking to a very beautiful Japanese girl. All of a sudden, she started asking questions about the SR-71. The next day, I reported the contact to my supervisor and the OSI. The problem is you never know if it’s a government agent trying to see if military members are giving out classified info. If you don’t report, you get in deep trouble.

    Also, in the military, we have the UCMJ. Article 104 of the UCMJ:
    “Any person who—

    (1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

    (2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

    So, what Hasan did was, um…illegal. You really don’t have any first amendment rights in the military.

    But also, I wonder what you and Matthews would have said back in WWII, if a person of German descent was found to be having correspondence with Hilter’s Germany.

    ReplyReply
  34. yonason says: 30

    @Aqua:

    When I was in the Navy in Charleston, SC, there was a fellow (Korean possibly) who was taking pictures at end of the pier my ship was moored at. I’m surprised his film wasn’t confiscated. At least he was told he couldn’t do that, and sent on his way.

    As to Army Regs., I doubt CM has a clue what they are, or even any interest in researching them, especially if the result would limit his ranting.

    ReplyReply
  35. Red 73 says: 31

    Rodney G. Graves

    How come there were civilians shot as well?? Just asking.

    ReplyReply
  36. Aqua says: 32

    @ yonason

    Yep, when I was in Okinawa, the only way I knew the SR-71 was getting ready to take off…lots of Japanese lined up at the fence at the runway and the Russian Trawler sitting right at 3 miles off shore.

    The feds may not get Hasan for talking to Al Q, but I guarantee you the Army JAG has article 104 written down in the charges.

    ReplyReply
  37. Hard Right says: 33

    Rodney, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
    Hasan meets the definition of terrorist in every way. It should also be pointed out that terrorists are not lawful enemy soldiers. To equate them as such is disgusting.

    ReplyReply
  38. repsac3 says: 34

    Maybe for a civilian.

    I more or less acknowledged that I was thinking like a civilian when I made that first comment, and said in my second–after it was pointed out to me–that if the rules aren’t different for those in the military with security clearances at least, they ought to be.

    So, what Hasan did was, um…illegal.

    I want to believe you and Rodney G. Graves in comment #10 are correct about that, but there doesn’t seem to be any question that the FBI knew about the contact, and they claim they reported it to the Army. (Yes, I saw that today the Army released a statement denying that they were ever told. If they were–& I’d suspect that if they were the FBI will have documentation, like any good beaurocracy–the Army failed to act. If they weren’t, the FBI dropped the ball.)

    You really don’t have any first amendment rights in the military.

    That’s why I believe the Army should’ve acted, based on the clues among the 34+ above that they did have. I mean, if nothing else, having some ass spout off about his love for the enemy while in uniform has to reflect poorly on the Army, in the same way that I can’t post disparaging shit on the internet about the company I work for. Even if they couldn’t arrest him, they could’ve disciplined him, or something. It’s not so much that free speech doesn’t apply; but that with rights come responsibilities, particularly in the service. You can speak, but the things you say can have consequences.

    But also, I wonder what you and Matthews would have said back in WWII, if a person of German descent was found to be having correspondence with Hilter’s Germany.

    I can’t speak for Matthews, but if I was there then, I probably would’ve thought much the same as my fellow Americans, and wanted to string German-Americans from lampposts and lock Japanese-Americans in camps. I grew up in a different time, when motives matter, and people aren’t guilty or innocent based on heritage alone. Knowing exactly who the German-American was corresponding with, and what was actually said, would greatly influence my response. I don’t blame the folks during WWII who felt as they did–like the Americans who kept slaves back in the 17 & 1800’s, and the men who denied women all manner of rights, they were a product of the times they lived in–but I’m glad that we’ve evolved, since then.

    ReplyReply
  39. Aqua says: 35

    @ repsac3

    Agreed. If the Army knew and did nothing, someone up top is going to (or at least needs to) have their a$$ handed to them.

    I can’t speak for Matthews, but if I was there then, I probably would’ve thought much the same as my fellow Americans, and wanted to string German-Americans from lampposts and lock Japanese-Americans in camps. I grew up in a different time…

    Fair enough. However, I think it’s time we started showing some common sense in this country. Stip searching some little old lady in the security line at the airport while people of middle eastern descent pass through, is a little nuts. Not saying every person of middle eastern descent is a threat to aviation, but I’m relatively sure the little old lady isn’t. And if for some reason she is, I’m betting the flight attendants could take her.
    Furthermore, another incident like this is going to be ugly. The political correctness is only hurting law abiding people of the muslim faith. If we go the extra mile to give a person such as Hasan the benefit of the doubt, a measure that wouldn’t be given to a member of a milita group member, it’s not doing the Muslim Community any favors. I would expect the FBI to be so up a radical milita group member’s rear end, he could smell their cologne. Same deal with radical muslims.

    ReplyReply
  40. yonason says: 36

    “DON’T RUSH TO INVESTIGATE”, uh, I mean, “DON’T RUSH TO JUDGMENT.”

    “I’m tired of hearing the claims that Islamic terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan “acted alone” when he massacred soldiers at Fort Hood, last week. He didn’t act alone. He acted with Islam and the Koran and his imam and his mosque. And with the celebratory support of the Arab and Muslim Streets all over the world.

    But now there’s evidence that Hasan’s attack was part of several attacks on U.S. military bases and personnel planned, coordinated, and orchestrated by Islamic clerics.Debbie Schlussel

    Please read the rest. It cannot be called anything other than a terrorist attack by an Islamofascist infil-traitor.

    And there are LOTS more where he came from, a partial short list can be found here under where it says, “Clearly, his loyalties lay elsewhere. And he’s hardly alone:”

    ReplyReply
  41. yonason says: 37

    @Aqua:

    “…and the Russian Trawler sitting right at 3 miles off shore.”

    Oh, that reminds me. When we went to sea we were occasionally tailed by a Russian ship (I think it was a trawler). I had heard about it numerous times, and actually got to see at once.

    ReplyReply
  42. yonason says: 38

    UPDATE TO MY (@yonason: )

    The Islamist fifth column is much larger than most people realize.
    http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/muslims-in-america-cheering-fort-hood-massacre/

    Before 9/11 virtually all (with only a couple of possible exceptions) of the Islamic websites either had violent jihad material on their websites, or on sites they linked to.

    ReplyReply
  43. yonason says: 39

    UPDATE: STILL NOTHING TO SEE HERE
    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199572.php
    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199571.php

    Hey, is it a crime to advocate terrorism? I mean, until they actually kill people, what can one do?
    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/major-muslim-hasans-emails-to-devout-imam-were-seeking-spiritual-and-religious-guidance-had-we-laun.html

    And yes, he did shout “Allah Akbar”
    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199569.php

    PS – I think someone should tell them what “Akbar” means, LOL.

    ReplyReply
  44. Larry Sheldon says: 40

    @internet news: Interesting oldie–not sure I see the relevance–the objective (singular) of our government and the people that elected it is crystal clear toi them, and to those of us who don’t drink the koolaid.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>