 |
||
I have a hard time looking at or listening to Joe Lieberman.
I know this is my problem. If I agreed with the man's politics, I'd likely view his smirking mien, his habit of droning and whining, even that occasional Alfred E. Newman grin with something resembling affection. But Lieberman's behavior from after the 2000 presidential campaign to the present is riddled with hypocrisy, and defiance of his own much-vaunted "conscience." In 2006, for example, he advocated a "MediChoice" system that would "allow anybody in our country to buy into a national health-insurance pool like...members of Congress have." What is that, if not a public option? So bitter is Lieberman at Democrats, and disrespectful of the American people, that when campaigning for John McCain he actually declared Sarah Palin fit to be president.
Yet, when it comes to the Fort Hood slayings, Joe Lieberman is spot on.
The murderous outburst of Major Nidal Hasan was an unambiguous act of terrorism. It's appropriate and necessary for Lieberman as chair of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee (please deal with that, Harry Reid) to find out why this particular terrorist was tolerated within the ranks of the U.S. Army. Hasan had for some time exchanged e-mails with the extremist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, prescribed violent medicine for "infidels," and been found guilty by his peers and superiors of poor judgment and incompetence. And, possibly, mental illness.
Consider this simple Dashboard definition of terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Whether Major Hasan was in need of the very services he was trained by his employer (us) to provide, or simply had his eye on avoiding service in Iraq there can be little doubt about his motive to hurt and frighten for political purpose.
Violent criminals are often driven by multiple motives: to exact revenge, rub out one's competition, gain notoriety, send a message of dominance (all motives, incidentally, of narco-terrorists).
We'll learn more about Major Hasan in the coming weeks and months, but it's entirely possible he killed (1) to avenge the religiously offensive treatment he claims to have suffered at the hands of the military; (2) to promote a radical religious agenda; (3) to keep himself from being shipped off to the Middle East, whether as a political statement or an act of cowardice. What difference does it make? His implicit goal was to harm and intimidate in furtherance of a political agenda.
And so what if that agenda was more personal than political? Think of a suicide bomber whose motive is not so much in service to Allah but rather to prove himself to his family, or to gain sympathy from a love interest who's spurned his advances. Think of a homegrown murderer whose anger at his boss or coworkers leads to mass killings. The ultimate goal, twisted and nuanced as it may be, is to call attention to perceived workplace injustices, in part by scaring the hell out of people.
"Political aims" need not be confined to broad or grand domestic or international or religious themes. Indeed, we're taught to think global, act local as a form of pragmatic politics. Violence aimed at perceived workplace inequities is terrorism, a label I'd also stretch to fit the act of a murderous husband who opens fire at his estranged partner's downtown law firm. Likewise, more transparently, the killing of an abortion doctor.
Lieberman is right to question how Major Nidal Hasan's threats, reflecting a radical and violent interpretation of the Qur'an, were tolerated for years by the Army, and perhaps by the FBI. He's right to demand answers to why the copious collection of dots in this case were never connected.
Follow Norm Stamper on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CopsSayLegalize
Norman Lear: Lyndon Johnson, His National Security Advisor and His Secretary of Defense Say All
Was the Vietnam War an act of prescience, or simply a prelude to today? You decide. The first 1000 people who respond to this blog will receive a free DVD copy of last Friday's PBS show, Bill Moyers Journal.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let's see now:
A devote Muslim doctor is put in charge of debriefing returning soldiers haunted by their experiences killing other Muslims around the world. He says he can't take it any more and asks over and over again to be relieved of duty. The Army says no and by the way we're going to send you to the front so you can participate directly in the murder and me hem yourself.
Gee whiz, I wonder what is going to happen next?
Judging from what we know, his guy was NOT a secret terrorist planted in our midst quietly waiting for his chance to ponce and unlike Joe Leiberman he is not an agent for some theocratic foreign state. If he is insane, the Army drove him crazy, if he acted as a rational agent of conscience against what he considered to be a murderous enterprise, he still not a terrorist. In short Joe Leiberman has never met a Muslim who wasn't a potential threat to the nation that commands his undying allegiance. Any Muslim with a grievance is by his definition a terrorist.
Attacking on-duty soldiers in a military base, who are en route to deployment in a war zone, is simply not terrorism, if terrorism is a word that holds any meaning more precise than "people we don't like".
Hasan is likely guilty of murder, perhaps of treason, and perfidy isn't a stretch, either. He is not guilty of terrorism.
It's not the motive that makes an act of terrorism, it's the target.
After the fact grandstanding politicians are seldom a reliable source of information, and things are not always what they seem. I'd recommend waiting until the investigation is completed before proclaiming that a politicianwas correct about anything.
In most of your posts, I am in total agreement with you, but not this time.
You call Hasan "particular", as if he is something odd and rare. Mr Stamper; have you noticed recent reports of the psychological makeup of our military as of late? Racism, sexual assault, religious intolerance, and so on have been reported in the military since the war on terror caused the military to lower the standards for enlistment. Ex-felons and others who before wouldn't have passed muster are shuffled through the process and trained to kill in months. Over the past 10+ years, think of how many stories have been reported about present and ex-military personnel killing and assaulting people? Hasan's errant behavior is becoming more of a norm than otherwise.
War on Terrorism is USED by JOE WILSON every time he goes to the FLOOR to speak!
Now- WSJ/MURDOCH- liek the phrase
They want to keep that WAR on TERROISM alive
So does the backstabbing lieberman
Lieberman should worry about New London, CT and those residents bulldozed by PHARMA driven JOBS!
THAT WILL NEVER come to CT-
We won't know the truth about Hasan's murderous rampage fro some time. As for Lieberman, we already know the truth about him and his misguided political motivations. Let's fight the wars we can win and send Lieberman packing.
For the Middle East.
According to almost everyone here Terrorism doesn't exist in their vocabulary unless it pertains to the USA and Israel.
israel introduced terrorism as a method to a means in the middle east after wwII when they were trying to be recognized as a state.....
Lieberman is grandstanding, again.
Israels Senator wants to make some points and get his mug on TV.
what political agenda was he promoting?
None! A Major going postal within the US Army does not a terrorist make. While there certainly should be an inquiry into the Fort Hood shooting, it would be better served by a commission rather than a politically charged senate subcommittee hearing on the matter.
This nonsense that this was a terrorist attack is nothing more than a GOP talking point. No political organization has taken responsibility for Major Hasan’s actions, nor are we ever likely to hear of any offers of responsibility, except those proffered by the minions of the GOP that put America in a bad light.
Agreed!
Mr. Stamper has either forgotten or been misinformed about the contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, which happened over a year ago, and was discovered to be research for a presentation Hasan gave.
He was recently promoted, you do not get promoted to major if your peers and superiors question your mental health or your competence.
Mr. Stamper, wait for the evidence to come in before you judge and declare.
You're wrong and so is Joe Lieberman.
Joe Lieberman is wrong because, based on his own words, his investigation starts with a conclusion, that Major Hasan is a terrorist, and predicates itself on that conclusion. That's not an impartial investigation, that's a witch hunt. It's neo-McCarthyism. It's unacceptable.
You're wrong because you accept his premise.
"The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
I agree, war is terrorism. All governments are guilty of it.
Is Hasan the (still) living definition of a terrorist?
Aristotle (and hats off for the name, btw), I don't think that's clear. He may have just gone crazy or been an "disgruntled employee," so to speak. I think the proverbial "we" need to sift through all the evidence and find out after that.
You're right -this case needs all the review it can get. It does look like there might have been some elements of the "disgruntled employee" syndrome as it was reported that his superiors didn't have much to say about his professional abilities. He might have felt underminded on one hand and kept on his Army position on the other for exactly the same reason - being a muslim - all this in a resentful mix swirling inside his head. So may be it was the strictly personal motive that started the ball rolling.Hi
1./ Normal people don't seek out excuse/per
Your question is excellent
Terrorist Cells are no longer centralized, franchised or standardized and operational centers seem to be extremely diversified. So if there isn't any cash or communication flow established, is just one guy and maybe a friend or two (if established) looking for their 15 minutes of horrific infamy - or was he part of a vast network?
For the same reason, should we condemn and take action against every official of the GOP for every terrorist-like teabag statement? No, if we could prove that the teabaggers were acting on their own and had been denounced by the leadership. Yes, when the leadership appears at the gatherings and endorses their public activities. Are they not cultivating the next version of McVeigh or Hasan or at least creating the blinders which undermine enforcement.
Unfortunately, in the current climate, a pattern of overly confident statements laden with superlative adjectives usually are a defense mechanism against the truth. Joe and his Republican colleagues are jeopardizing the hard work done by the justice department and are trivializing the lives of the victims, not out of sorrow but out of opportunism.
During WWII the Soviets penetrated the Manhattan Project following various venues of espionage. The very best one?...Sen
So,was Hasan ONE of THEM (islamist)
The problem with the word terrorist or terrorism is not that it does not apply. The problem is that the people that scream about it are irrational. Once they say it, disagreement on what to do about it is said to be patriotic or weak.
We wasted 58,000 thousand lives in Vietnam because of another boogieman word, communism. The right wing hawks did not mind seeing those deaths for their crusade against communism. That is what so infuriating about this. Vietnam was never a threat to U.S. and you could not know that we lost the war without asking someone. Life in the U.S. did not change one iota.
The neo-conservatives want to use terrorism to continue their macho vision of our country. I want to focus on real interests that need addressing. Afganistan is not of any importance to this country. Let's deal with it based on real issues, not right wing macho ideology.
JFK and LBJ were right wing? Gosh, I had no idea.
Yes, LBJ did not seek a second term because of dissent in his own party. All the justification for the weekly death rates were the commies are coming argument. Nixon won over a divided Democratic party with a secret plan to end the war. More Americans died after Nixon came to office than before he came to office. It took years and 58,000 lives and the loss of interest by the American population to turn the ship around and get out. None of those lives were worth going into Vietnam. Afganistan is a similar waste.
Mr. Stamper: The "simple Dashboard definition" you choose indicates that it is "appropriate and necessary" for you to do some some historical research - or at the very least consult a better political dictionary.
But I'm not sure how ANY definition of terrorism could possibly make it "appropriate and necessary for Lieberman as chair of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee" to investigate anything, or play any part in Homeland Security.
Please stick to the War on Drugs. You lost me here.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
