A Short Vocabulary Lesson for Sen. Lieberman (With Some History Thrown In At No Extra Charge)
People who label Nidal Malik Hasan a "terrorist," like Joe Lieberman just did, literally don't understand the meaning of the word. And how can they keep us safe from terrorism if they don't even know what it is?
Here's what Sen. Lieberman said: ""There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."
Here's a fairly concise definition of the word 'terrorism', drawn from the Random House Dictionary: "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." (emphasis mine)
Had Dr. Hasan become "an Islamist extremist"? It sure looks that way. But was the horrific slaughter he carried out intended to "intimidate or coerce" anyone? We've heard no evidence to that effect. These terrible killings may have just been an expression of inchoate rage. And if we don't know whether coercion or intimidation was the goal, than we certainly don't know if it was done "for political purposes."
Sen. Lieberman's statement, on the other hand, probably was made "for political purposes." And bigotry might be a factor, too, don't you think? After all, the Senator made no such statements about other shootings at military facilities.
Let's get one thing straight: This is not a liberal, knee-jerk defense of someone because he belongs to an unpopular minority (although defending unpopular minorities is generally a good practice). If we learn that Malik Hasan left a note saying "anybody who serves in the US Armed Forces must know they will face retribution," we'll know that he is a terrorist. He will have committed his murders in order to intimidate or coerce. But right now we don't have any evidence that suggests Hasan is any different than the civilian who killed 23 people at a cafeteria right down the road from Ft. Hood, shouting "This is what Central Texas did to me!"
Apparently that guy really hated Central Texas. But he wasn't a terrorist, because he wasn't trying to intimidate people or change their behavior.
So if the Luby's Cafeteria Murderer wasn't a terrorist, what does qualify as terrorism? Al Qaeda's dirty deeds do, of course. Those cowardly killings are intended to provoke US withdrawal from all Muslim countries. (No, they don't do it because "they hate our freedoms.") Christian extremist Scott Roeder's act of murder was terrorism, too, because he wants doctors to stop performing abortions. (He and others like him have nearly achieved their goal, too, which makes it pretty effective terror.)
The Irgun's bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed 91 people in 1946, was also an indisputable act of terrorism, designed to intimidate occupying British personnel and encourage their withdrawal from Palestine. The Irgun's behavior provoked the World Zionist Congress to condemn "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare," much as mainstream Muslim groups have repeatedly condemned Al Qaeda.
And it's not just a God thing. Muslims, Christians, and Jews are not the only ones whose followers have engaged in terrorism. Forty years ago terrorists in Europe and the United States were likely to be non-believing members of leftist groups like the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, or Weather Underground. Disbeliever Leon Frank Czolgosz shot President William McKinley, arguably an act of terrorism, because of his anarchist ideals. As Robert Pape's data analysis showed in Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, even suicide bombers are more likely to be driven by powerlessness than religion.
When James David Adkisson killed those Unitarians in Knoxville, he wasn't trying to change anybody's behavior. He was acting out his rage against liberals - a rage apparently fomented by viewing Fox News and reading books by Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Adkisson and Hasan are similar figures, both of whom are guilty of horrific behavior (assuming Hasan's guilt and conviction, of course.) But neither are "terrorists" by any rational definition (based on what we know today.)
If we had applied Lieberman-like logic after the Knoxville shooting we would have started profiling anybody carrying a book by Hannity or O'Reilly. (I can hear some of you saying "Good idea!" Knock it off, guys - this is America.)
I believe in strong, clear-eyed work to combat terrorism. We also need an effective strategy for spotting soldiers that are about to snap and go on a killing spree. But they're not the same strategies. It's beginning to look like some serious warning signs were overlooked in the Hasan case. We need to find out what went wrong and fix it. But a tough antiterrorism policy begins with a hardnosed, non-ideological (and non-prejudiced) look at the facts. The Lieberman definition of terrorism would have us squander our investigative resources by pursuing a lot of Muslims rather than a lot of potential terrorists.
I don't mean to pick on Sen. Lieberman. It's a soul-killing waste of energy to resent any individual politician, as tempting as some of them may make it. But Lieberman's a good proxy for all the right-wingers who have called Hasan's terrible act "terrorism." (And we can drop the pretense that Lieberman is anything but a die-cut, straight-down-the-line rightist.)
I don't object to the Joe Liebermans of the world because they're conservative. I object to them because they don't know what the hell they're talking about. Their goal is indiscriminate military aggression toward the Muslim world, not effective security for the United States. They seem to believe that comments like these build a case for that agenda and prove that they can keep us safer than those now in power.
They're really proving the opposite. They're showing that they're still likely to act before they've gathered all the facts. Once again they've responded to tragedy with their patented blend of blind fear, misdirected anger, and cynical rhetoric. They're reminding us one more time how often they've failed and flailed in the face of danger. And they're demonstrating that they don't understand the real threat any more now than they did when they blundered into Iraq. Yet despite one embarrassing display after another, they keep claiming they know how to keep us safe from terrorism.
Terrorism?
They don't know the meaning of the word.
_________________
UPDATE: A flock of rightwing trolls is attempting to "prove" that Lieberman was right and that Hasan is a terrorist, rather than a soldier who snapped. In so doing, they are consistently distorting my position - which is that we don't know which he was, and that strategies for soldiers who snap are not the same as strategies for terrorists. We need both, and we need to direct our resources where they're most needed.
Every definition of terrorism offered below includes the desire to intimidate or coerce, phrased in some way or form. Terrorist? Re Hasan, once again: We don't know. Wise military and police actions are based in finding the facts before we act, not reacting based on fear or political agendas. You're suggesting you know the facts of the case better than the military or the FBI. I'm sticking with the military and the FBI.
Lieberman's comments are intended to create a climate of fear for political purposes, not to provide better protection against violence. So are yours. Your agenda distracts us from effective war planning and policing. Each of you is helping me prove my point.
And here's an idea: Maybe everyone who claims they "know" the killer's motivation and have cracked this case - yes, it's terror, etc. - should show us their military or police ID. After all, they must be experts or they wouldn't be so sure, right?
RJ Eskow blogs when he can at:
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Nicolette Hahn Niman: Avoiding Factory Farm Foods: An Eater's Guide
Eventually, I mostly gave up on supermarkets and began exploring new ways to get at the good food I was seeking. My goal was simple: I wanted all my food to come from places I would enjoy visiting.
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
Yes a well written article. You are all very quick to take the contrary position as much as Lieberman may have taken the Terrorist position. Maybe Lieberman was too loose with his terminology. Hasan was affected by religious ideology contrary to the US position.
Hasan may likely be a terrorist. When I say this the military at the same time should be protecting our Muslim soldiers. Though nonetheless we should call Hasan what he is if in fact it is a terrorist. He appears to be influenced by the wrong people, terrorists. He didn't believe America should be fighting wars against Islam. He didn't think he should fight wars against Islam. As a non terrorist concious objector he should have run to Canada or a Muslim country like during Vietnam. Instead he killed 12 people.
Its easy to say he's crazy. All suicide bombers are crazy. So were the 9/11 perpetrators. They were manipulated and controlled. . Though he was acting alone /all of the information for manipulation was there. Extreme Muslim ideology is angry about the west and want to strike back.
He hasn't been tried he's an alleged Terrorist but it appears so. He's also an alleged murderer. Why is it so hard to use the word. I bet if it was a member of your family killed you could see the other point of view.
very thoughtful article, when i read about lieberman planning an inquiry only one thing came to my mind did he conducted any inquiry on jonathan pollard spy issue which was so serious that even after high level lobbying campaign to get him free (which is surprising!!!) military refused to budge citing the information which he had procured...
so mr. eskow is right to when he writes bigotry is certainly involved...
Al Gore's biggest blunder was to pick lieberman as his running mate. Just like McCain picking palin, lieberman now believes he is somehow important and we should all believe what he says. Let's have a liberman-palin ticket and watch which one can get to a microphone first.
Superb journalism. This is the kind of article that we need to see every day. I longed for this kind of intelligent, well founded journalism during the dreary, horrific years of G. Bush. Thank you and keep writing
Hasan was a disturbed man. Whatever caused him to snap was a disgrace to his uniform, the military, his family, his religion and this country. However, I for one will not deem him a terrorist because of his religion for one simple reason - the other pyschiatrist, last year, while stationed in Iraq who went on his own killing spree before committing suicide. The difference between the two men are obvious to those who paid attention to both stories - Hasan was Muslem, the other man was not.
In other words, if Hasan is a terrorist then so is the other doctor.
Correction - the psychiatrist did not kill anyone, it was one of his fellow soldiers. Here is an excerpt of an article on the subject:
Alarmed by the rising suicide rate among soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and “wanting to help,” Matthew “Matt” Houseal, MD, a psychiatrist with the Texas Panhandle Mental Health Mental Retardation Center (TPMHMR), reenlisted as an Army Reservist and volunteered to serve in Iraq.
Last month, Houseal, 54, of Amarillo, Tex, and Navy Cdr Charles “Keith” Springle, PhD, 52, a clinical social worker from Wilmington, NC, were working in the combat stress center at Camp Liberty in Baghdad when Army Sgt John M. Russell allegedly opened fire. Houseal and Springle were killed along with 3 soldiers awaiting treatment: Pfc Michael E. Yates Jr, 19, of Maryland; Spc Jacob D. Barton, 20, of Missouri; and Sgt Christian E. Bueno-Galdos, 25, of New Jersey.
My original point still stands - when a soldier kills other soldiers, whether on US soil or not, does not mean it was an act of terrorism. It means the killers have mental or emotional problems. When the proof comes in it was an act of terrorism, then, I will call it that.
Amen to your statement about mental or emotional problems. I think it is being irresponsible to label it a terroristic act until the evidence is in. The military needs to take a long, hard look at the mental health of our military - something is wrong with this unprecedented violence that has occured within the military in the past eight years. Sure the guy is guilty, but I fear we overlook the psychological aspects and these acts will continue is not addressed.
I emailed Liberman's office on Monday urging him to use restraint in labeling the Ft. Hood attack as a terriorist act until all the facts were in. Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population from which Liberman is trying to garner support and that segment is easily incited.
This is not a problem of vocabulary. This is a problem of perception.
some of us percieve that this is plain old terrorism (or whatever word you wnat to call it) and soem choose to believe that this is nothing more than a soldier gone crazy.
Words have meaning. Perception is not necessarily fact. When you follow the tactic to muddle everything up to suit yourself, that's just plain wrong. And no matter your perception, ignorance is not bliss.
I posted an observation here which was removed by a moderator. On going over the rest of the posts I could see that many others had seen what I saw in the original story by R.J. Eskow. What I saw that others also saw was the connection in his mind between the Palestinians needing sympathy while the Israeli occupiers being responsible pretty much for people going berserk as this man had. I liked the straightforward way in which Jan P dismissed all the fussing about definitions and getting down to the bear bones of the exercise, namely that soldiers had been murdered in their own barracks. I also indicated that as far as Lieberman was concernned, he had no legs to stand on for anything at all. Different words of course because I hadn't kept a copy of my remarks. I was banned for my pains and I can' t find out who has it in for me for some unknown reason. was a "certain segment" of the population" from which " Lieberman" (misspelled as Liberman) "is trying to garner support.?" "That segment was easily incited," he thought. Except that it took both those houses to incite me, a former English teacher. I guess now this moderator can go ahead and do his damndest..I hope there's a higher authority though if this issue ever gets there. As a retired person, I am very attached to Huffpo as a citizen journalist in other ways.(Eyes and Ears.)
i'm really glad he survived the shooting by the brave officers. we need to go thru all the hand wringing and name calling many to the far left will resort to in a misguided defense of whatever they think they need to defend or offend the rest of us about why this happened. its ok as i'm sure a lot of folks will finally get off the fence. it needs to be real messy and drawn out and if found guilty of this mass murder he needs to pay with his life. the left could only come out on top here if the officers had been better shots under duress and ended his life.
Howieone, did you even read the article? It seems like you wish to make this a liberal guided issue. The man was crazed about being sent to a war, that, if he was there, he figured he would be targeted and his head cut off. He showed his erratic behavior and was then transferred to be deployed to his nightmare, and since he was well aware of what the young soldiers did there, he did not want to be a part of it. It had to do with him and his inner beliefs, but was he a terrorist?..... hell no, he was a coward and he killed probably hoping he would be killed, I do agree with you about the bravery of the officers that shot him, and it is wonderful that he will be now made to pay with his life for his criminal act, not terrorism. Fear mongering is what the right wing love to foment, and they have a cavalcade of people stepping up to do it. I dare any of you to go watch this youtube video of a Marine and what he went through in his tour, and then think of what all the young men and women have had to go through and what they still have to go through to just stay alive once back home...... Please watch the entire video. This is what has happened to our men.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ffRkv9et0&feature=player_embedded
Just another Tuesday
Let me ask you a question Howieone. When Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had his troops kill all the Black Union troops indiscriminately, offering no quarter, during the Battle of Fort Pillow, was he also a terrorist. He was trying to instill fear and coercion in the hearts and minds of any Black Union Troops. Since he was fighting on the side of Rebels would that make him a Terrorist as well? How about John Wilkes Booth? I doubt that what you call terrorism is the sole property of Muslims.
As I see it, Dr. Hasan's murderous renzy had more to do with being a psychiatrist in the military than with being a Muslim much less a Muslim extremist. The medical profession has the highest rate of suicides and psychiatrists in the military hear the worst stories imaginable and they are helpless to help their patients because the military says they can't support their patients if that means encouraging their patient's justiied anger toward the military for the brainwashing the military does to silence the conscience of soldiers. When a soldier is in mental and emotional turmoil, a military psychiatrist has only two primary options: give the patient drugs or give him support for the recovery of conscience which means admitting the wrongs that the military commits. That puts the doctor into a double bind. It is not a wonder that Dr. Hasan cracked. It is a wonder that more military doctors don't.
And we as citizens of America have justified anger toward radical Islam for the brainwashing of their converts to silence their conscience in creating terrifying mayhem.
And do we also have the right to stick our noses into their world every opportunity we get and use those opportunities to enrich ourselves? Hows about I come by your house and see if you have any resources on it that I might want. You got any oil under your land?
Consider what mental health professionals hear every day: Graphic stories of the sights, sounds, horrors of war that his patients had seen and heard, and were having trouble processing. He had to deal with troops feeling rage, horror, guilt for what they did nor did not do, etc. He had to listen to soldiers experiences, help them come to terms with these experiences. He had to set his own feelings aside and be present for his patients. Try dealing with that 15-20 HOURS/week. Only the very stable can do this. Obviously, Dr Hasan could not do this. Unless we find ways of increasing the numbers of mental health professionals in the military, and find better ways of supporting those who are doing this work, we will experience other disasters in the future.
Remember that Major Hasan was born in this country, he volunteered to serve at 18, prior to 9/11. When he started medical school, he could not have envisioned the future, of a theater of war in a Muslim country. He was vocal about not wanting to deploy, and wanting out of the military. We have a consciencious objector regulation in the military, but it does not deal well with the sorts of issues that Major Hasan's story raises. We need to revise this regulation, and, I believe that if any one of several things had been different, he would not have taken his weapons to Ft Hood last week.
Pr Chris
Wonderwheel, as a former Navy Chaplain, I agree with you on Major Hasan. The military is chronically short of mental health professionals. The pay is so much lower than they can earn in other positions, and the military mental health community is sometimes looked down on by the civilian community. Here was a young man, single, though not by choice, which meant on the one hand that he was probably lonely, and on the other, that he had only a limited support network. He was also relatively introverted in his personality, which would make self-support even harder. This means that it is easy to have difficulty processing the experiences of his psychiatric sessions. One of the most important lessons we can learn from this is that we need to be very aggressive in supporting the mental health people in the military. They are the first line of defense against what we have seen at Ft Hood, and when they break, we see the damage.
Pr Chris
This is what I wrote to Sean "Fox" Hannity ...
Sean … as you can see this is a major mess up between agencies starting with the Bush-two administration. The information coming out at this time confirms numerous contacts with “persons that we consider unfriendly” to this country. As you so clearly stated … these people are terrorist. We also found out that these contacts occurred during the Bush-two administration’s time in office through recent times this year. We found out that different security agencies of the United States knew about this individual and his contacts along with his intent.
Sean, have you considered that perhaps these agencies can’t admit that they were possibly using Nidal Hasan as a means to get other covert information? Maybe he was passing information to these agencies about terrorist activities. After all he is a doctor and his function was involved with helping individuals with respect to psychological involvements.
We have a great deal more to find out about this crazy situation and the true involvements of these agencies. We have a great deal more to find out about Nidal at to why this was done? In any case Nidal did the deed. He is guilty of this deed. It will also be interesting to find out his relationship to the security agencies of this country and the Iman.
I am sure this will come out during the trial. I hope you really follow this up and leave the speculation to others.
Teccord,
By all means let find out all of the speculative items that anyone can come up with but let's not allow that to prevent us from getting Hasan off to those 72 (or whatever) virgins as soon as possible. Bush-two has absolutely nothing to do with this. This happened on Obama's watch.
No Lewis, Hasan was being looked into over a year ago. WHO was president then? Yep, georgie boy. Once again, the bush intelligence(?) team flunked and created another mass killing on American soil. Can't blame Obama for this one.
Oh yes, Bush has everything to do with this and other atrocities by the way, he is the one who inspired terrorists and hate.
According to U.S. statute, the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. http://www.history.navy.mil/library/guides/terrorism.htm#definition
"Premeditated"? Nidal Malik Hasan bought his guns, loaded them, brought them to Fort Hood and began shooting.
"Politically motivated"? Hasan has been quoted as approving of suicide bombing and the murder of army recruits by another Muslim.
"Noncombatant targets"? The term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty. Most if not all of Hasan's victims were reported to be unarmed until a policewoman was able to bring him down and was also shot in the process.
"By subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience"? Well it is true that Hasan appeared to be operating alone, although he had clandestinely contacted on several occasions his former radical imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, after the latter fled to Yemen and became a recruiter for al Qaeda.
As for intending to influence his audience, he shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ (the jihadist mantra) right before starting his bloody rampage.
Of course, apologists for Islamic terrorism ignore the plain facts and prefer to wallow in politically correct fantasies.
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/11/obama-unable-to-utter-two-simple-words-islamic-terrorism/
Thanks for putting it into such incontrovertible terms.
Said well.
Thank you!
It's not being an "apologist for Islamic terrorism" to point out where your logic falls apart.
At this point, while we are beginning to nothing what Hasan's beliefs were, WE DON'T KNOW what Hasan's motivations for the shooting were. The two are different things.
Given what we know of his beliefs, is it likely that this is an act of terrorism? Certainly. But it's not definite.
And that fact that he yelled "Allahu Akbar" does not necessarily mean that he was acting to influence an audience. Is it likely? Again, yes. But the phrase itself isn't telling, especially coming from someone raised as a Muslim - it simply means "God is greatest," and it's a common phrase. A Christian under stress would yell "Oh my God!" or "Oh Jesus!" but that doesn't mean that they're acting out of any religious impulse.
This was a horrific act you can label it what you want. It's the world of Islam were at war with. Make no mistake they don't police their own and our government has an agency more powerful than the executive branch and it also does whatever it wants. Its the high financiers of the world with agents from these two groups that keep us at each others throats domestically as well as with foreign governments. 911 was to packaged of a deal for me. When I commit a felony regardless of proportion wouldn't be nice to have a commission to classify all the pertinent information because my personal security is at risk. Not to mention a building with all records and documents to high level officials destroyed under mysterious circumstances. I don't care you call or label me whatever the label is of the day but having a protected office only goes so far with me. We need to concentrate on keeping the morsels of freedom we have left but moreover getting back the freedoms we've lost. By peaceful and legal means and when thats not enough the Declaration of Independence is a legal standing document that supersedes our now practically null and void Constitution. Enough of us have to be willing to shed our blood and give our lives for it. It is no light matter and "tyranny will continue to abound as long as good people stand by and do nothing."
Lieberman represents Israel's viewpoint on the world scene and cannot be trusted. He is very prejudiced against all Arabs and anyone who does not agree with Israel's behavior or more truthfully, misbehavior. On health care he represents the insurance companies in his state. He is despicable and is a disgrace to both parties. I think he should be impeached for his blatant self serving votes .He is useless as a SEnator as he does not represent his average voter . He needs to remember he is an American senator not an Israeli elected official... does he know the difference????
He was elected by the voters in his state ... for exactly on the positions he holds now and always had. That's how it works in a free society ... do YOU know the difference?
http://PoliticallyHomeless.net
allegiance to neither political party
He was reelected by a minority of his state's registered voters. He was not reelected by any majority. Money keeps him in power, not a majority of his constituency. He did not articulate his intentions for this term, and they have changed with his change in party affiliation. Nobody knew exactly where he stood and still don't. He takes immense amounts of money from shadowy and secret special interest groups and votes questionably for our security, domestic and international. He continues to surprise and anger his own constituents. This is NOT how it works in a free society, this is how is works in our society.
Ah, you won't believe anything that an israeli or supporter of israel says, even if they are right?
or can't we ever be right in your mind?
I'm thankful for Joe and his support of Israel.
At the peril of the United States. I have no problem supporting nations that are aligned with our standards or our ideal standards and our vision for a more humane and peaceful world, however, when we chose to support nations that violate everything we stand for while we turn a blind eye to their horrific acts, then there is a problem. The amount of money we spend defending Israel could provide quality health care for every single American and could also prevent every home foreclosure, feed every single American child, and create millions of new jobs for Americans by implementing an aggressive infrastructure plan.
A nuanced post. A necessary voice.
I agree but people like Lieberman and many other people who post concerning this article are not 'nuanced.'
I don't think I can write what they are and have it published - so I leave it up to your imagination.
PAX
You mean leave it up to our prejudices...of Joe Lieberman.
Everybody's all wrapped around the axle about using the word Terrorist or not using it. Some still argue that the Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist act, while others argue it was just a "nut case" act. In order for that to have been a terrorist act by definition, there needed to be some sort of goal, usually political, and usually trying to influence the government.
This Fort Hood act is at least a criminal act. It may be a terrorist act, but it depends on several things. Was Hasan trying to influence the U.S. Government in some way by his action? If so and if he acted alone, it may be a "lone terrorist" act. If the email exchange with his imam in Virginia show that he and the imam were writing to each other about doing this act for some political purpose (i.e., influencing the U.S. Army, Gov't, etc.), then this may have been either a domestic or international terrorist incident, depending on if the imam was in turn in contact with people overseas (Muslim extremists, Bin Laden?) and talking with them about doing terrorist stuff over here in the States.
Or, it may be that Hasan just did this because he was nuts and didn't want to be deployed overseas. Then it's just a criminal act.
Let's wait for the info on this and see how it turns out . . .
I think that in this case Joe Lieberman was correct in using a term that has become accepted for those who are enemies of our way of life. When he elicited the "God is Great' term, he was referring to his faith in Islam and his justification for his act. The term terrorist has been overused and is irrelevant anyway. He succeeded in terrorizing us and therefore, he was true to his cause. This man warned people when he gave his dissertation upon graduating med school (a privilege he acquired from our US government service) and in no uncertain terms warned of his pending act and his justification for it. He should be treated as an enemy and his act an act of terrorism, until we stop using the term so losely.
That Major Hasan said "God is great" as he started shooting has been reported, but is not confirmed at this time. So, let's see what the actual proceedings show.
Secondly, how do Muslims use this phrase? Under what circumstances and for what purposes? If you don't know this, it is hard to judge what he meant by it. There are Catholics who freely use the sign of the cross in ways that most Protestants (if they even sign themselves) would feel uncomfortable. So, we need to understand first, what Islam understands by the phrase and under a variety of circumstances, and secondly, how Maj Hasan understood/used it, if he did.
Until then, it is merely uncorroborated reporting, and speculation, and is inflammatory.
Pr Chris
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
