Sunday, December 9, 2012

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD

 On 5 November 2009 at the Fort Hood Army Base Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 servicemen and servicewomen (one of whom was pregnant) and wounded another 32 others all the while reportedly shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great).    Prior to this happening Hasan had been in contact with the Islamic extremist Anwar al-Awlaki who, in a sermon on his blog on 15 July 2009 wrote "Blessed are those who fight against [American soldiers] and blessed are those shuhada [martyrs] who are killed by them".

The US Department of Defence set the tone by describing the incident as a case of "extreme workplace violence" rather than call it for what it clearly is ... a terrorist act by an Islamic terrorist.    Ever since then Hasan has been treated with kid gloves and afforded every protection and more as his case comes to trial.

The latest move in this saga happened just 5 days ago when the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (a civilian Appellant Court) ordered the Military Trial Judge, Colonel Gregory Gross, dismissed and a new judge found.   What led to this?    Colonel Gross had ordered that Major Hasan present himself to the Court clean shaven in accordance with military regulations.    This apparently (in the eyes of the Judges of the Appeals Court) constituted judicial bias against Major Hasan.

One has to wonder what the families of the dead and the 32 wounded think of all of this.    Are they being treated with equal 'respect'?    Knowing the way the military functions I suspect that those still serving have been told just to get on with their lives while those who have since left have been cut loose.

This is political correctness gone mad by an administration that would run a mile not to cause offence to radical Islam and bugger the feelings of the rest.

 



21 comments:

Noel said...

US Military Law says the face must be clean shaven expect for religious purposes.

Hasan is claiming his facial hair is for religious purposes whilst Colonel Gross was of the opinion it was to make it harder for witnessess to make him.

I suspect that in the end it won't really matter because he will be judged on other more credible evidence not why he is wearing a beard.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... Husan was quite happy to be clean shaven up until the point he went on his killing spree.

Now he is attemting to hide under the cloak of religion as he attempts to delay further his trial and present himself as a martyr.

He is a terriorist pure and simple and no different from the IRA or Protestant para-militaries who used religion as a vehicle to achieve a political agenda.

And the judicial process in the United States hasn't quite worked that out or, if they have, seem powerless to stop it.

Judge Holden said...

"Now he is attemting to hide under the cloak of religion as he attempts to delay further his trial and present himself as a martyr."

So is he a real Islamist terrorist or not? You seem confused about that. Anyway the whole thing must be directly Obama's fault somehow. He Muslim after all.

The Veteran said...

Holden ... one of your more stupid comments. Husan is a terriorist hiding under the cloak of Islam ... or perhaps that is too much of a nuiance for you to figure out.

And by running the Obama/Muslim line you are using a straw man argument to divert attention from the point of my post that the firing of Colonel Gross is political correctness gone haywire ... but I accept you know much about straw men and, I guess, political correctness.

Judge Holden said...

"a terrorist act by an Islamic terrorist."

"Husan is a terriorist hiding under the cloak of Islam"

Hmmmmm. You've confused yourself somewhere along the line in your rush to get all uppity about PC GONE MAD (tm). Did Obama order the judge's firing personally do you think?

The Veteran said...

Holden ... Jueez you worry me with your inability to understand quite simple concepts.

Your final sentence sums up your pathetic attempt to confuse the issue .... of course Obama is Muslim; of course he ordered the firing of Grose; of course man never landed on the moon and of course the Pope is a Protestant ...
sigh.

Noel said...

The Veteran said
"And the judicial process in the United States hasn't quite worked that out or, if they have, seem powerless to stop it."

Nowhere in the Appeals opinion is there any statement that the case should NOT continue to trial.

It will go the complete distance regardless if Hasan is clean shaven or wears a beard.

The Veteran also said

"This is political correctness gone mad by an administration that would run a mile not to cause offence to radical Islam and bugger the feelings of the rest."

Bollocks!! The Appeal Court delivered an opinion after reviewing the relevant military law.

Judge Holden said...

Stop it with the pesky facts Noel. The PCs are letting the Moooooslims win the war of terror!!! Seriously Vet, you're in Cwusader Rabid land here.

Anonymous said...

The Veteran said
"The US Department of Defence set the tone by describing the incident as a case of "extreme workplace violence" rather than call it for what it clearly is ... a terrorist act by an Islamic terrorist.

He is been charged with thirteen specifications of murder and thirty-two specifications of attempted murder arising from shootings that occurred on November 5,2009 at Fort Hood, Texas.

Not terrorism sure but on conviction the punishment is the death penalty.

Psycho Milt said...

The US Department of Defence set the tone by describing the incident as a case of "extreme workplace violence" rather than call it for what it clearly is ... a terrorist act by an Islamic terrorist.

It's not clearly an act of terrorism though, is it? If he'd set about some plan to sabotage something or set up a mass murder, it would be a terrorist act. But picking up a couple of guns and a shitload of ammunition and going out to randomly murder a bunch of your colleagues/classmates is familiar territory to Americans and not exactly the stuff of terrorism. The question of what motivated one of these workplace killers is really of marginal relevance.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the 'soldier of allah' written on his business card could be a clue.
Perhaps the way he harrangued officers about converting to islam, and Western decadence might be a clue.
Perhaps the cleansing ritual and the giving away of his possessions on the day he slaughtered the soldiers might be a clue.
Perhaps the way he screamed 'allahu akbar' as he mowed them down might be a clue.

It's a mystery for sure.

Mrs Danvers

Judge Holden said...

Typically nonsensical comment from Danvers. Who said anything was a mystery old girl? You really battle to comprehend what's going on most days don't you? Tell us again why Romney won the election.

Noel said...

The court opinion identifies why the Judge was removed.

It wasn't because Hasan was a Muslim or a perceived terrorist.

In part it said "... It could reasonably appear to an objective observer that the military judge had allowed to the proceedings to become a duel of wills between himself and the Appellant rather than an adjudication of the serious offences with which Appealant is charged."

With that out of the way the legal process can continue.



Psycho Milt said...

Mrs Danvers:

Well, Norway charged Anders Breivik with terrorist activity so I guess you could justify a similar charge against Hasan. But I'm prepared to ascribe greater competence on that issue to the prosecuting authorities than to you, me or the Veteran.

The Veteran said...

Folks ... whether you like it or not the US Department of Defence has been at pains to 'dumb down' this act of terriorism into an "extreme case of work place violence".

Consider how this plays out on the victims families or don't you care preferring to stand up for PC gone mad.

Noel ... yes, the case will proceed despite all the attempts to run interference ... the clean shaven bit is, I agree, a side bar but indicative of that interference aided and abetted by a civilian Appealant Court that cares more about the so rights of a killer rather than the victims and anxious to 'shove it' to the military..

So if you want to stand up for Major Husan and argue the point that he deserves some special consideration as an 'Islamic Terriorist' then go to it but count me out.

No matter what you think, Islam, for the great majority of adherents, is a 'gentle' religion albeit with it's own mores exactly the same as Catholicism or mainstream Protestantism.

Husan does not deserve the appealation of Islamic terriorist any more than the IRA do as Catholic Terriorists or the Protestant Para-Militaries. All are terriorists pure and simple. Make no mistake, Major Husan is a terriorist and should be treated as such.

Some of you are s l o w learners.

Noel said...

The Defence Department, because Hasan at the time of the offence was a serving US soldier have an obligation to try him under the same rules an any other soldier.
And that includes his right of redress to an appeal body.

You stated "that (the Appeal Court) cares more about the so rights of a killer rather than the victims and anxious to 'shove it' to the military.

Have you read the opinion?

The defence counsul, as is the right of any soldier Islamic or otherwise, asked for an opinion and that was delivered.

I'm not that slow.


The Veteran said...

Noel ... yes I have. My comment stands. This was a civilian Appealant court and it is a matter of record that there is no great love lost between it and the miltary establishment. Whether that is justifiied is a moot point.

I accept you may have a different view to me. That is your right.

You at least argue the point. Not so with that arrogant patronising prick Holden.

Judge Holden said...

You don't really have a point. You have an opinion, not backed up by the facts, that this is somehow an example of the world being taken over by PC GONE MAD!! It's been demonstrated that it's nothing of the sort, but you can't back down because you think that makes you look weak. Kind of like Adolf giving up blogging rather than apologising for being so horribly wrong all the time.

And if we're talking about who's slow, it's appellate court, not "appealant".

Noel said...

Your right we are never going to agree on this one.
In closing I would just say that if I had a case been heard before a Judge who was of the opinion that I had left excretement in the toilet, later confirmed simply as mud from the guards boots, I would also wonder if he was impartial.

The Veteran said...

Holden ... one to you patronising pedant.

Noel ... yes, I agree the Judge should have been more careful with his language but, as I said previously, I stand by my comment. Husan is a terriorist pure and simple. He should be treated as such.

Anonymous said...

If I was been judged by one who couldn't tell the difference between shit and earth I also would be looking sideways.