Fort Hood Killer, Hasan: A terrorist subject to the law of war?

November 8, 5:22 PMCook County Independent ExaminerJacelya Jones

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Cook County Independent Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Sen. Lieberman (I-Conn.) AP Photo/Harry Hamburg

** Update**  Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder.  More charges may be forthcoming.

**Update**  The Army knew that Hasan had contacted Al Qaeda, and that he had made colleagues uneasy with this presentation.

** Update** Hasan, who is awake, talking and represented by counsel is now thought to have attempted to contact  Al Qaeda some time ago. 

Senator Lieberman wants to launch an investigation whose question to be answered is:  Were the actions of Fort Hood killer, Major Nidal Malik Hasan (Hasan) 'acts of terror'?  In his article, Lieberman calls Ft. Hood shooting ‘terrorist attack’, David Edwards explains:  "Homeland Security Chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman told Fox News' Chris Wallace that he wants the Department of Defense to launch an investigation into the shooting rampage at Ft. Hood. Lieberman said evidence indicates that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was probably a 'self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist.'" .  For many this question must have an obvious repsonse -  another question:  Who shouts "Allahu Akbar", as Hasan was reported to have done, before killing 13 people?  In the World News section of the Telegrah, an article entitled, Fort Hood shootings: the meaning of 'Allahu Akbar' , says, in part:  "Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage that killed 13 people at Fort Hood military base in Texas have reported that gunman Major Nidal Malik Hasan shouted 'Allahu Akbar' before opening fire.".
Can terror supsects only be considered terror suspects if they

AP Photo/USUHS

hoard weapons, accumulate dangerous chemicals and plot - without ever actually killing anyone?  Hasan attained two weapons, one semi-automatic.  He may have premeditated a killing spree that played out as the attacks and murders at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009. 
It is curious that reports on the assailant thoroughly detail the tragic events surrounding him, sharing personal and public details about Hasan (Read more about this here  and here.), and yet shy away from asking an ostensibly logical question - given the fact that America is at war against radical adherants of Islam:  Does Islam have anything to do with Hasan's actions?  Put another way, was Hasan a Muslim who was (or had become) radicalized and launched a terrorist attack on Fort Hood? 

Before the shooting, Hasan:  1. Said "goodbye to friends and [gave] away most of his belongings, including copies of the Koran[]"; 2. Allegedly said "...he was 'happy' when a US soldier  was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre (sic) [by an American who was a Muslim convert][]"; and 3. Shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' — 'God is great!' in Arabic — before opening fire, [according to] base commander Lt. Gen. Robert Cone[]".   However, President Obama has actually cautioned against jumping to conclusions - not in his speech immediately following the Fort Hood tragedy where he opened with the 'shout out' that recognized a congressional Medal of Honor winner who was, technically, a  Medal of Freedom recipient.  This was a speech delivered in a Rose Garden statement whose greatest focus was the economy.

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Others have flatly set forth the claim that Hasan's murder spree has no connection to Islam:   Imam Mohammed Abdullahi said, in part:  "We offer our condolences and prayers to the families that have a person who died.  Islam is not responsible."
Now, Sen. Lieberman's probe, if launched, will seek to tell the world whether Hasan's actions may be described as 'terror attacks' and the man himself, as a 'terrorist'.

The reason why this answer isn't more easily arrived at can have nothing to do with the American media culture's politically correct mien as it pertains to the religion of Islam.  Can it?  Afterall, others of the faith have been labeled suspected terrorists.  Likewise, the reason why this answer isn't more easily arrived at can have nothing to do with any ambiguity surround the fact that the accused actually carried out a crime - that is, given the witnesses to his acts.  Can it?  Afterall, others who have planned crimes, but whose acts of terror were interrupted before successful commision of their larger goals were achieved have been unequivocally linked to terror. (Read more about this here and here.)

Yet, Hasan, who shouted out 'Allahu Akbar!' (as has been connected to destructive behavior and intruments before), not only appears to have been or become radicalized; Hasan may have been the author of internet postings that suggest his understanding of Islam informed him that this kind of killing was honorable: 

Officials are investigating whether Hasan was the author of Internet postings that caught their eye about six months ago, discussing suicide bombings and other threats.  In one posting, the author compared Islamic suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on grenades to save their colleagues.  'To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its (sic) more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause....  Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers.'

(Read more about his here.).  And, most important, Hasan killed thirteen people before hero cop, Officer Kimberly Munley stopped him. 
Why then is anyone unsure whether this killer, Hasan, is anything but the obvious - ? - A terrorist?

For more information on how you can help: Visit the USO's Fort Hood page