On the DoD jihad coverup, more is needed than editorials

Here is the Washington Times’ editorial on the Defense Department’s supposed report on the lessons learned from the Fort Hood massacre. A calmly written editorial, or a hundred calmly written editorials, is not sufficient response. The reason the Army did nothing about Maj. Nidal Hasan with his openly threatening jihadist and pro-terror statements was that he was a Muslim. The report, by remaining silent on the Islamic nature of Hasan’s motives and murders, is continuing and raising to a higher level the very behavior that allowed the mass murder to take place. So this is worse than the “harming diversity would be a greater tragedy than stopping the mass murder” remark of Army chief of staff George Casey. That was a comment by one high-ranking official. This report represents the considered, collective, official response by the Defense Department. There is an enemy within, threatening us, killing us, and our own government is consciously and deliberately covering up his existence. If the government gets away with this, we will have taken a large step toward a Britain-like condition of political death.

EDITORIAL: Islamic extremists in the workplace
Defense Secretary Gates ignores the homegrown Muslim threat
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 26, 2010

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 14 and wounded 30 in his jihad at Fort Hood in November. According to the Defense Department, the incident wasn’t a terrorist attack but merely a case of workplace violence. This is typical of government efforts to paper over the growing domestic Muslim threat.

On Aug. 18, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates released the final Fort Hood follow-on review, in which he proposed initiatives to “mitigate internal threats, ensure force protection, enable emergency response and provide care for victims and families.” Radical Islam is nowhere to be found.

Some passages hint at the nature of what took place, such as the need to clarify the rules for religious accommodation “to help commanders distinguish appropriate religious practices from those that might indicate a potential for violence or self-radicalization.” PowerPoint briefings that describe the duty of jihad against the unbelievers—as Maj. Hasan presented to a military audience—probably don’t fall in the “appropriate” category. The report also calls for increased counterintelligence awareness of the potential for linkage to international terrorism. For example, if someone already showing signs of radicalization exchanges 18 e-mails with a Yemen-based al Qaeda field commander over six months, as Maj. Hasan did, it’s probably worth looking into more closely.

A vaguely worded passage recommends firming up the process whereby individuals act as “ecclesiastical endorsers of chaplains.” These are people who vouch for those who serve in the military chaplaincy. The original Fort Hood incident report found that “DoD standards for denying requests for recognition as an ecclesiastical endorser of chaplains may be inadequate.” A majority of the Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military were validated by the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, part of Cordoba University in Leesburg, founded by Taha Jabir Al-Awani, president of the Fiqh Council of North America. A fatwa from this institution on Muslims serving in the U.S. military states, “We abide by every law of this country except those laws that are contradictory to Islamic law.” In other words, Shariah is supreme to the officer’s oath to the Constitution. An endorsement from this group should be considered a red flag, not qualification to serve.

The Defense Science Board currently is examining “behavioral indicators of violence and radicalization,” and the report recommends a better force protection reporting system for suspicious behavior. This is where the system breaks down. Maj. Hasan didn’t slip under the radar because of an inadequate reporting system or lack of indicators that he was a problem. He escaped strong scrutiny solely because he was Muslim.

In the prevailing politically correct climate, few officers want to risk reporting anything to do with a Muslim for fear of official retaliation. Those who report Islamic extremists in the ranks, or even try to give poor fitness reports to troops who happen to be Muslim, are more likely to be the subject of investigation or suffer administrative harassment. The force cannot be protected until military members are convinced they can report on Muslims without placing their careers in jeopardy.

The latest Fort Hood report fails to face the Islamic problem head-on. It reinforces the generally understood rule that Muslims are a privileged class in the American military who—figuratively speaking—can get away with murder.

[end of editorial]

- end of initial entry -

Rick Darby writes:

Of course more is needed than editorials. Every officer who in any way advanced the career of Major Hasan, while knowing his jihadist attitude, should be court-martialed.

Still, even making allowances for the fact that the Washington Times is a fringe-y paper with little influence, that last paragraph is a cracker:

“The latest Fort Hood report fails to face the Islamic problem head-on. It reinforces the generally understood rule that Muslims are a privileged class in the American military who—figuratively speaking—can get away with murder.”

For the paper that kicked Sam Francis’s column off the commentary page for being too forthright about race and immigration, this is surprisingly bold. You will have noticed that it talks about “Muslims,” not “Muslim extremists” or “Islamists.”

The Washington Times is far from representative of the mainstream media, but is still part of it. This editorial is a good sign.

LA replies:

You’re right. I didn’t give the editorial enough credit.

Terry Morris writes:

You wrote:

There is an enemy within, threatening us, killing us, and our own government is consciously and deliberately covering up his existence. If the government gets away with this, we will have taken a large step toward a Britain-like condition of political death.

This is tantamount to treason against the United States. The oath that our service members take is to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Although I think that the officer’s oath is somewhat different than the oath for enlisted. Then again, there are oath breakers at all levels of government, so this isn’t at all out of the ordinary but par for the course.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 30, 2010 10:00 AM | Send