Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
So, what is the answer to my question: In what way can a similar event (the Hasan incident) be prevented if a soldier/officer shows no signs (other than strong Jihadist tendencies) that he will turn on his comrades? I gather by your equating Islam to other religions, that the perpetrators and professors of radical Islamist's contemporary and actual "terrorist" activities are to be perceived as no more of a present danger than the possible, equivalent actions of the extremists within other religions. That free speech (even seditious, treasonous speech) is to be protected in the military. I gather, then, by your lengthy answer, that there is nothing that can be done. Just wait for the next incident and prosecute it as a mass murder. Of course, that is not prevention.
|
I think you're mixing issues.
The real breakdown of the military appears (based on what we know today) is that Hasan's private life was inhibiting his ability to perform his job. Given some of the erratic behavior that's been noted, one would think this should have raised the appropriate red flags.
The degree of radicalization is a legal issue, and Hasan has the same rights of any US citizen. I'm not sure he crossed any legal lines before the shooting in this regard, at least with what we know.
While some assert the Army was blinded by political correctness, they seem to ignore the fact that he was
promoted to Major in spite of his poor performance simply because there was a shortage at the time.
Certainly his action was influenced by his faith, but all religious rage isn't terrorism. With hindsight, the biggest change that could have prevented this event appears to be more judicious management and monitoring of a subordinate.
-spence
Threaded Mode