.jpg)
Reports litter the internet connecting Nadal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, and Imam Anwar al Awlaki, an American Islamic scholar in Yemen who praised Hasan as a hero in a recent blog post. Emails intercepted by US intelligence confirm their contact, and the media is portraying him as the new Osama bin Laden. He wrote:
"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... 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... It is becoming more and more difficult to hold on to Islam in an environment that is becoming more hostile towards Muslims."
I'm not about to take that position, but I can understand the logic of both sides. The standard reasoning goes, if you are in favor of the war you must necessarily believe that the actions of the military are just. If the actions of the military are just than they have the right to initiate violence on the opposition. If they have the right to initiate violence than the defense of the opposition is illegitimate. If the defense of the opposition is illegitimate than one who strikes against the military is a terrorist. To understand Imam Anwar's reasoning all you have to do is reverse the first premise. If you are against the war you must necessarily believe that the actions of the military are unjust. If the actions of the military are unjust than the opposition has a right to defend themselves. If they have a right to defend themselves than the military is a legitimate target. If the military is a legitimate target than one who strikes against the military is a hero. That's the unfortunate dichotomy created by the initiation of violence. I'm not ready to call Nadal Hasan a terrorist, or a hero. But I'd like to discuss two examples from recent news which describe what I think Major Hasan could have done that I would have condemned as terrorism, and would have praised as heroic.
Consider the story of The Eagle bar which was raided by police last September. This from the Huffington Post. Patrons are sitting at the bar watching football when suddenly, "HIT THE GROUND!" The lights switched on and in rushed roughly 30 cops barking orders with guns drawn. One of the bar patrons asked why. "Shut the f*** up!" was the answer. The elderly man was targeted and forced face down on the filthy floors. "No questions! Do what you're told or we'll arrest you!" The search and seizures began. Everything in everyone's pockets was taken. Driver's licenses were put through a laptop screening. Du-wan Ray, the bar's manager, was handcuffed and overheard one officer say to another, "This is a lot more fun than raiding niggers with crack!" The officers high-fived each other. For almost two hours sixty two men were forced to lay face down on the ground while the cops searched. They didn't find one suspended license, one criminal prior, no drugs, no weapons, nothing. Not even a parking ticket. In the end the men were ordered to leave the bar without their cell phones, wallets and personal belongings. Not one arrest. Not one apology. When bar patrons asked why this had happened one cop said, "I hate queers!" The Eagle was a gay bar.
Remember the definition of terrorism:
terrorism, -n. (the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear) Princeton
What these men did was absolutely terrorism. Maybe they didn't blow themselves up in a cafe. Maybe the didn't fly planes into buildings. But they absolutely used calculated force, and the threat of force, against civilians through intimidation and instilling fear. These men should lose their badges, and they should serve time in prison. But this kind of tyranny is becoming all too common as soldiers home from war are ushered directly into the civilian police force, and police departments adopt the military "crowd control" techniques. These thugs are drunk on power.
What if Nadal Hasan had followed the example of these officers, as all bigots with power eventually do? Power in the hands of corrupt authority is wickedness. Just imagine if, when entering a new Afghani village, his unit forced all the men's face in the dirt at gun point. Robbed them. And when no ties to any terrorist network could be confirmed and the civilian population was asking why this had happened he replied, "I hate sand niggers." I have no doubt that Nadal Hasan heard endless accounts like this from soldiers returning from war in need of psychiatric help. I'm sure Hasan listened to these stories and in his heart of hearts he thought, "those were my people." But imagine if Nadal Hasan himself went to Afghanistan and took part in such a raid where violence and intimidation were used against innocent civilians without just cause. If Nadal Hasan had done that, I would condemn him as a terrorist.
Now, consider the story of former Austin Police Department rookie, Officer Ramon Perez. This from the Austin Chronicle. He filed a civil lawsuit against the department, his former supervisors and an APD psychologist, because he was forced to resign based on his religious beliefs after he refused to use excessive force against a suspect. Perez disobeyed an order from senior police officer Robert Paranich to use his Taser on an elderly man because the man was not resisting arrest and could easily be subdued with lesser force. Perez said the man appeared to be in questionable health and a likely candidate for a heart attack. In such circumstances the Taser can be lethal. Parez successfully placed the man under arrest with no more force than soft-hand control, which proves the Taser would have been excessive. After the incident Sgt. Jesse Brown ordered him to report the APD psychologist Carol Logan for a "fit-for-duty review", which was used to justify his termination. Logan's four-page report focused entirely on Perez's religious beliefs. She wrote, "Perez has a well-developed set of personal beliefs. These seem to be based primarily on his religious beliefs and it is obvious that he has spent a lot of time reflecting upon and developing these views." The report concludes that Perez, a nondemominational fundamentalist Christian, was so impaired by his moral convictions as to be unfit for duty. Perez was given a choice to resign or be fired, and chose to resign. Perez refused to comply with an unlawful order, and he argues that he was forced to resign, in violation of the First Amendment, after refusing to violate the rights of another.
Ramon Perez is a man who's moral convictions transcend the authority of the State. A man who's ultimate concern was his accountability to God. A Christian first and a police officer second. Ramon Perez is worthy of praise as a hero. I've heard from many well intentioned police officers that corruption rises through the ranks in these departments, and men of true valor, such as Perez, are eclipsed by trigger happy sadists eager to aim their new toys at you and me.
What if Nadal Hasan had followed in the foot steps of Ramon Perez, as all men of conscience should, and simply disobeyed? Civil disobedience in the face of corrupt authority is righteousness. Just imagine if, when confronted with the contradiction between his moral convictions and his orders he simply refused to comply. Maybe he would have been discharged after a psychological evaluation like Perez, or maybe he would have gone to prison for insubordination. Either way he would have retained his moral credibility. Imagine the impact if Nadal Hasan had instead written a book about his experience as a military psychiatrist. About his own internal struggle, and the moral conflict inside every soldier of conscience. The impact of such a book would have accomplished far more for the peace effort than the death of 13 soldiers, which will invariably escalate the violence in response. If Nadal Hasan had done that, I would praise him as a hero.
Comments
Great piece - definitely a viewpoint I hadn't considered before today.
You should be ashamed of youself. It's because of brave men and women who risk their lives as soldiers and police officers who gave you the Freedom to publish this trash! If you can't show some respect for our armed forces why don't you get the hell out and go try to catch a bullet with the other "sand nigers" in Afganistan.
The Islamic Republic of Iran executed 6 or 8 people today for simply protesting the last election. The Taliban executes school teachers for teaching to girls. The State of Texas actually executed an innocent man some years back.... Welcome to the world of 2009 where power corrupts and servants of governments do awful things under the guise of 'law' or 'religion'.
Regarding Awlaki, you say, "I can understand the logic of both sides." that is a very rash thing to say. I know you are not agreeing with him 100% but it's in poor taste & it's ignorant to even remotely give the impression you agree with Awlaki. IMHO you should be ashamed of yourself as a Muslim.
While I don't often agree with you on anything you write, I usually enjoy reading your articles as you offer another point of view. I did not enjoy this one but just like listening to Howard Stern, whether it's good or awful, I look forward to what's next.
Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.
Stephanie - thank you for the kind assessment
Sword of Freedom - Those men and women did not give me freedom. I was endowed by my Creator with certain inalienable rights.
Mark - I would regard all of those occurrences as terrorism. Also, understanding is not agreement, and logic knows no flag. Of course as an American I'm concerned about attacks on any Americans, but when it comes to logic I have to take the lunar view and step out of the patriotism. You have to understand any problem before you can address it. Instead of critiquing the statement, please, critique the logic.
Also, what is it I should be ashamed of exactly?
Thanks for your response, I do enjoy your articles.
"Terrorism" - a discussion here is just about semantics.
The shooter killed people. No religion agrees with killing others but somehow you can understand the logic? How is that?
Mark
Mark - Thank you for your civil response. To be clear, I'm not speaking about religion, and religion doesn't inform my inquiry. Logic also knows no religion. By your argument the soldiers who have killed are morally equivalent to the shooter who has killed. I believe that the only logical measure one has for the moral content of violence is the non aggression principle. You strike me a liberty minded dude, so I suspect you are familiar, but for those who aren't the NAP holds that the initiation of violence is inherently illegitimate, and defense is the only legitimate use of force.
This is my point. If one merely reverses their first premise of which side of the conflict is aggressive, and which is defensive, they will arrive at the opposite result. A terrorist becomes a hero and it doesn't require religious extremism.
I'm not saying this is my position. I'm saying that this position is logical for a person who views the US military as the aggressor.
Mark - You strike me as a logical person, and I appreciate that. I'm going to re post my original logical syllogism so that maybe you can help me with it. If there's a hole or a leap in this logic please point it out to me. I don't like this position. I don't want to take this position. Honestly, I am afraid to take this position. I miss the days when I had confidence in my government. But I find the logic very compelling, and I'm hoping someone can correct me:
If you are against the war you must necessarily believe that the actions of the military are unjust. If the actions of the military are unjust than the opposition has a right to defend themselves. If they have a right to defend themselves than the military is a legitimate target. If the military is a legitimate target than one who strikes against the military is a hero.
The only question is... Is this war just?
You state, "If you are against the war you must necessarily believe that the actions of the military are unjust."
Isn't it possible to be against the war and not believe the actions of the military to be unjust?
Furthermore, "striking out" against the military might entail those not directly involved with the war correct? Surely, not every individual involved in the military participates in the war.
Does this logic apply to all actions undertaken by the military or simply those restricted to the war in question?
This is a slippery slope you're treading here.
I've usually got your back, bro but I have to disagree.
When you join the Armed Forces there is a code of conduct that you swear to adhere to. This guy had a long history of problems and there is a chain of reports stating that he had requested to be discharged, etc.
This guy had a mental imbalance and his long record is evidence that this is yet another situation where the Armed Forces did not have the best interests of the soldiers at heart and were focused on other things.
This guy should have been discharged and given a psychological counseling as part of his final de-briefing.
He is not, and never will be, a hero. He is a killer.. doing what he was trained to do at absolutely the wrong time.
He snapped, plain and simple.
I think you guys have missed my point. Probably my fault. This is not an article about Nadal Hasan being a hero. This is an article about Ramon Perez being a hero. What I’m saying is that if Nadal Hasan has emulated Ramon Perez and disobeyed immoral orders I would praise him as a hero.
I have no horse in this race. The US Military is a organization that initiates force against civilians. Every Terrorist group I’m aware of is also an organization that initiates force against civilians. I condemn both. (As if Texas executing an innocent man is the only example of state terrorism in years) My moral support is behind noncombatants on both sides, and I do not value one innocent life above another innocent life regardless of race, creed or flag.
The logical game being played here is not my opinion. I am the Socratic gadfly buzzing in the face of Athens asking, “Are you being consistent?”
to be cont..
cont...
I know nothing. Mark calls me ignorant. If you know something please teach me, and I will ask more questions. Because you can’t have opposite moral rules for Americans and everybody else.
So, if your principle is that killing is always wrong, does your principle apply to US soldiers? If it’s moral when US soldiers kill, and immoral when US soldiers are killed, why?
AS –You’ve made some great points. Is it possible to be against the war and believe the actions of the military are just? If you think the cause is just and your against it are you against justice? Can you say more, I want to understand that point. But I think your second point is better and I want to praise you for it. Yes, not all military are directly involved in fighting. That is a great argument! And you’ve inspired me to do some extra research on who the victims were. I know that one was pregnant and lost the child. True tragedy.
Cont…
SA - I’ve read that the soldiers were unarmed. Also, some of the victims may be medical personnel. Good point.
But the question is are you being consistent? If a US soldier who is not directly fighting is innocent is a member of the opposition not directly fighting innocent? Doesn’t that describe Imam Anwar?
What’s the principle? If you voluntarily facilitate violence are you morally culpable for violence? If you load the gun but don’t fire it are you an accomplice to murder?
Saifullah – I agree that Nadal has violated his oath, which is treason, which is a capital crime. He will be put to death. I agree that there is a larger issue here about the wellbeing of all soldiers of conscience. Perhaps Nadal is the canary in the mine. Nadal recommended that Muslim soldiers have the option to be released as conscientious objectors. I think all soldiers should have that option. If there isn’t enough moral support for the war effort they shouldn’t have a war.
fin
There are two points I'm trying to make, one is about the article you wrote and how the reader (me) perceives it. This is why I said you should feel ashamed. The second is regarding your 'perceived' POV and the shooter's, that "we are Muslim first and American second" Pt.1 You as the writer of this article, a Muslim, have presented in text, a quoted statement from Imam Anwar al Awlaki that the shooter, the mass murderer, is a hero.(along with a large picture of Awlaki) Then directly after that paragraph in the very next sentence you say "...I can understand the logic of both sides." Whether you wrote this on purpose or by accident because you did not foresee [ignorant] how it would be perceived by readers I don't know. This, to me at least, is in very poor taste, the point that you understand the logic of why the shooter killed those unarmed innocent people and he did it in the name of Islam. cont...
This is how ME, the reader, percieved the article. Now, as a practicing Muslim, the killing of anyone should be wrong and condemned. The term ignorant, is not meant as a derogatory remark or slang, ignorance means you were not aware how this would be percieved. Translations and instances such as this often occur between people of different backgrounds, languages or lifestyles. Also I agree with Saifullah. Plain and simple, the guy was a nut job and snapped, you should be trying to distance yourself from his actions no matter what logical argument is applied using 'theory' or no matter what larger discussion we can have on global military conflicts.
Thank you.
Mark
Just one quick note about War, the great thing about having sound money like gold, is the government cannot overspend and finance wars. Gov. borrows to finance these wars, gold and silver as money would prevent this type of atrocity. After the Vietnam war, we saw what all that borrowing did to the U.S. Economy. I'm afraid in a year or two the costs of these conflicts will destroy the American dollar and most of the country. This is why we use gold and silver as money plus digital gold.
Mark
Mark – With all respect that isn’t what I said. Immediately after Imam Anwar’s quote I said I do not take that position BUT I can understand the logic. If a counterterrorism academic was on a PBS special and said the same thing we’d all be scratching our chin and thinking about it. It sounds like your objection is that I am a Muslim who said it. Also, I’m not talking about the logic of the shooter. I agree. He’s a nut job who snapped. I’m talking about the logic of Imam Anwar.
The question is, are you being consistent? If killing anyone should be wrong and condemned, does that apply to the US military? If not why? What’s the principle?
I have distanced myself. I believe the correct response to immoral orders is civil disobedience and I believe violence is only legitimate in defense.
I agree completely about gold money. I wrote an article titled “The dust of riba and the rush for gold” which you might enjoy.
"Perhaps Nadal is the canary in the mine."
Insh'allah he will be the last one.
Far too many have fallen over the decades because the Military treats soldiers as machines instead of as people.
In Vietnam when new arrivals "in country" were obviously shaken and out of element instead of being sent back to the USA as being unfit for battle, they were sent out as point scouts to be the ones who would draw enemy fire or trip booby traps.
This is a sick reality that nobody wants to admit... except of course the veterans who survived the horror.
I disagree with the concept that soldiers should be allowed to withdraw their commission if we go to war for a cause they do not agree with, however they should be allowed to rotate out from active duty to reserve or National Guard.
Unless, of course, they consistently have reviews which indicate mental imbalance or inability to complete the task.
The main issue here is to treat soldiers with more concern and not as much disregard.
I don't want to over-do the comments as this topic/event is a very sticky/unhappy one for me, I'll have to just agree to disagree with you on this one and move on....I enjoy your work and appreciate the opportunity to comment. You are very generous to take time and reply. Also the gold article is excellent, that is how I originally found your column. Please email me about reprint permission for my magazine. editor@dgcmagazine.com
Thank you again.
Mark
I hope that this murdering slug who disgraced the Army and his country has his head chopped off with a dull Ginsu knife. We will be celebrating that day! yah!
charles martel: You can't disgrace a cult of paid killers more then they disgrace themselves. Army men should swallow the hot end of their own rifle in my opinion.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!