The reason for the Army’s paralysis in the face of the Fort Hood killer’s jihadist threats

A half year after the Department of Defense issued a report on the Fort Hood Jihadist Massacre which never even mentioned that the mass murderer was a Muslim, let alone that as a U.S. Army officer he was an outspoken advocate of violent jihad against the United States, a fact well known to his superiors who did nothing about it, and after the Republicans in the Congress remained silent about this horrifying DoD cover-up, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has issued what sounds like a very mild report suggesting that the reason Hasan wasn’t stopped was that no one in the Army wanted to be seen as anti-Muslim.

The Christian Science Monitor’s article, entitled “Fort Hood attack: Did Army ignore red flags out of political correctness?”, by Heather Somerville, lacks specifics about the report. Some direct quotes would have been welcome. Somerville also gets close to justifying the political correctness she reports, by repeatedly arguing that if the government were to stop violent jihadist Muslims there is a terrible danger that it might target innocent Muslims and violate their First Amendment rights. Indeed that is the crux of the problem. Consider these passages from the article which lucidly explain American thinking on the subject:

The report provides insight into a larger problem, says Matthew Levitt, a former FBI counterterrorism specialist: the US government has been uncomfortable identifying and dealing with radical ideology for fear of infringing on people’s freedoms and making the political gaffe of racial profiling….

The report said the government lacks policies that distinguish between a devout yet peaceful practice of Islam and violent radicalization.

That problem, which was evident in the Fort Hood tragedy, exists largely because First Amendment rights often prevent the government from thwarting radical behavior, says Mr. Levitt …

There it is. In America, we worship the right of religions, of all religions, to be free of government interference. Therefore we are unable to distinguish between a peaceful religion and a religion which commands its followers to subvert our government and murder us. We are mentally paralyzed by the First Amendment. Which is why, as I have argued, we cannot solve the Islam threat without a further constitutional amendment stating that the word “religion” in the First Amendment’s commandment that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” does not mean Islam. A more direct approach would be a constitutional amendment that simply outlaws the practice of Islam in the United States.

Note also how inadequate and empty is the Monitor’s reference to “political correctness” as the source of the problem. “Political correctness” implies some irrational adherence to liberal political fashion. But if Matthew Levitt’s analysis is correct, it is not mere irrational PC which stopped the Army from doing anything about Nidal Hasan, but the entirely rational fear of violating his rights by targeting him over his religion. As Hasan made clear in his infamous PowerPoint presentation to his fellow Army officers, it is the religion of Islam that commands jihad. For the Army to have taken pre-emptive steps to prevent Hasan from engaging in jihadist acts that were commanded by his religion, would be, literally, to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Which shows once again that the only escape from our paralysis toward Islam that has been created by the First Amendment is a further amendment explicitly removing Islam from its protections. I realize that sounds extreme, but there is no other solution. If you disagree, tell me what your solution is.

Here is the article:

Fort Hood attack: Did Army ignore red flags out of political correctness?
A Senate report on the Fort Hood attack suggests that the Army failed to heed warnings about the prime suspect because it was wary of singling out a devout Muslim.

The Defense Department and the FBI should have recognized that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan had become an adherent of “violent Islamist extremism” before he went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, that killed 13 people, two US senators said Thursday in a special report.

The attack on Nov. 5, 2009, in which another 32 people were wounded, is considered by some the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

According to the report by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) of Connecticut, chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the committee’s top Republican, some Army officials had raised concerns about Major Hasan’s extremist behavior at Fort Hood and even referred to him as “a ticking time bomb.”

A cursory FBI investigation followed, but between poor coordination with the Defense Department and a failure to use all the intelligence available, nothing was done, according to the report.

The report provides insight into a larger problem, says Matthew Levitt, a former FBI counterterrorism specialist: the US government has been uncomfortable identifying and dealing with radical ideology for fear of infringing on people’s freedoms and making the political gaffe of racial profiling.

The Senate committee’s report calls for updated military training to identify signs of violent Islamist extremism and policies to ensure it is not tolerated, a change that would allow Army officials to root out Muslim extremists without being subject to accusations of racial profiling—a concern that may have prevented officials at Fort Hood from intervening when Hasan first showed signs of extremism.

The report said the government lacks policies that distinguish between a devout yet peaceful practice of Islam and violent radicalization.

That problem, which was evident in the Fort Hood tragedy, exists largely because First Amendment rights often prevent the government from thwarting radical behavior, says Mr. Levitt, now director of counterterrorism and intelligence at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“We can’t always be reactive,” says Levitt, “We don’t need to sit back and allow people who have been radicalized to have free range. You can’t be so politically correct that you can’t call a spade a spade.”

The concern now is that other Muslims in the military will suffer the backlash of new military policies aimed at Islamic ideology.

Although he isn’t aware that there had been a backlash so far, “there is always a danger of overreaction,” says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based Muslim civil rights and advocacy group.

New military policies borne out of the Fort Hood shooting should not be restrictive to radical Islam ideology but should address all erratic behavior, says Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of Foundation for Defense for Democracies, a nonpartisan think-tank that formulates counterterrorism policies.

It is a dangerously fine line, however, between focusing resources and tailoring national security policies to address the greatest threat on the one hand, and racial profiling on the other, some experts say.

“It’s this constant high-wire act that the US government continues to struggle with,” Mr. Schanzer says, providing security without “ostracizing the Muslims that may be patriotic Americans.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 04, 2011 11:20 AM | Send