I noticed immediate MSM comments/tone that conveyed 'it appears to have nothing to do with terrorism or the like'. They had no idea this was the case but were quick to give that impression. Why were they so quick to give this impression that violent teachings of Islam weren't at work here? Islam has not earned this deference. This is why the MSM, with its politically correct ways, is counter productive to the average American.

I heard Col. Lee say at least one incident of "Anti Muslim comments" toward this POS were made up by this POS. Of course it is only the word of one man, however, seems unlikely Col. Lee had these lies all ready to go so quickly?

Thanks again, Amy, for being part of the way too small sliver of the MSM that chooses to be honest about Islam.

Hasan can probably be classified an abberation, a lone nut case. Why? Because he had a good life, an education, a good standard of living. There will always be fruitcakes in the world, and he was one of them.

The problem is amongst the vast, poor, uneducated masses where religion promises a way out of a miserable life. Taken to the extreme, it justifies things that no civilized culture can tolerate: not only terrorism and suicide bombings, but honor killings, genital mutiliation, stonings, the right to attack, injure and kill entire categories of people (women, unbelievers), etc, etc.

It happens that Islam is very compatible to this situation, but it could have been any religion: there's plenty of evil stuff in the Old Testament - it's just that civilized people don't take it seriously. If no religion suited, someone would have invented one.

In any case: because these practices are fundamentally incompatible with civilization, it seems to me that they actually prevent the affected countries from becoming civilized. Hence, the continuing stream of barbarians out of the wastelands - who, unfortunately, want to impose their barbarisms on countries and cultures where they have moved to.

The $64 million question is not really "what do we do about Islam?" but rather "how do we deal with barbarians?" I favor Reginal Bretnor's solution: close the gates and let the barbarians do unto each other. A total embargo: no trade, no aid, nothing. Then you hold out the big carrot: offer trade and aid to any region that manages to civilize itself.

On ABC news this morning, it was said that the Major was upset about being called a "camel jockey" by some people on base. It wasn't specified whether it was friends teasing him, or if it was derogatory, but whatever the case, guy was a touch over-reactive, eh? o.O
What I want to know is, who were his friends off base, and where did he go (if he did) to church? Was he a devout Muslim, or did he seem so to others? And if this: ...Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades. pans out to definitely be his postings, he should be charged with terrorism accordingly, and be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I wonder how many other muslims, who have these leanings/feelings/tendencies, are in our military? There needs to be a swift investigation, like, yesterday. Profiling? Oh hells YES.

"It happens that Islam is very compatible to this situation, but it could have been any religion: there's plenty of evil stuff in the Old Testament - it's just that civilized people don't take it seriously. If no religion suited, someone would have invented one."

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS on this one; Islam isn't a convenient excuse for the random "barbarian" to commit heinous acts; IT IS A MANDATE to kill and destroy infidels and any who do not subscribe to its belief system. It is not a peaceful, "live and let live" religion that occasionally gets abused by radicals. Rather, central to its tenets ARE violence and "conversion" by the sword or death. And for those who'd point out that the "majority of Muslims are peace loving", no, not really. The majority of Muslims are not truly "faithful" to their religion. They're the equivalent of "Christians" who may attend church once or twice a year and identify themselves as such, but basically never crack open the Bible and pretty much live however they want.

If you read the Koran and are to truly follow its teachings, you cannot get around jihad. And for all the PC interpretations of jihad being simply an inner struggle for good within one's self, there are numerous, very literal passages within the Koran that denote bloody images of jihad (and how to carry it out). Lastly, do some research on the founder himself; the term prophet brings to mind a peaceful, wise individual, deep in reflective thought who meditates and writes alot; in actuality, Mohammed was a bloodthirsty, power-hungry and violent man who used his "revelations" from Allah to justify whatever he happened to want at the moment.

Oh, boo-frickin'-hoo! Hasan felt picked on. I was picked on in high school, but you don't see me running around shooting my former classmates!

I just wish these Hasans and Sodinis would just KILL THEMSELVES before they carried out their plans!

(Not that being picked on was necessarily the primary motivator for Hasan's rampage. Could be his interpretation of the so-called Religion of Peace applies here. (Ya think?))

Because he had a good life, an education, a good standard of living. There will always be fruitcakes in the world, and he was one of them.

The problem is amongst the vast, poor, uneducated masses where religion promises a way out of a miserable life.

Actually nearly all terrorist acts committed in the west by muslims have been executed by affluent and educated individuals. The profile you cite is entirely wrong.

"A formal investigation hadn't been opened? Well, why the fuck not?"

So you really think it's a good idea for the government to surveill individual political speech and open formal investigations based on the content of that speech?

So you really think it's a good idea for the government to surveill individual political speech and open formal investigations based on the content of that speech?

Well, when it comes to glorifying suicide bombers, it just might bear looking into...

Faleh Almaleki wasn't freaking arraigned as scheduled because of a possible suicide attempt.

I keep thinking about him as a truck driver. How many Muslims are truck drivers. The damage they could do. Almaleki used to work as a truck driver for a good friend of mine, and she saw nothing that would have given a hint that he holds extremist views. Then I think of my company's truck drivers and the high percentage of them who are Muslim, even though Phoenix isn't exactly known for its huge population of Muslims. Is this new? I don't want to see a conspiracy around every corner, but...

"Well, when it comes to glorifying suicide bombers, it just might bear looking into..."

Either you think speech is okay even if it's unpopular, or you grant the government authority to initiate formal investigations against people based on the content of their speech. I really didn't think the idea that citizens have a right to express unpopular opinions without fear of governmental surveillance and investigation would be a controversial one, especially on a libertarian forum like this.

Hmm. Truck drivers.

Here's a PDF of what they carry through your town today.

Panic!

"Well, when it comes to glorifying suicide bombers, it just might bear looking into..."

Either you think speech is okay even if it's unpopular, or you grant the government authority to initiate formal investigations against people based on the content of their speech. I really didn't think the idea that citizens have a right to express unpopular opinions without fear of governmental surveillance and investigation would be a controversial one, especially on a libertarian forum like this."

I have news for you. The government does it all the time. Just say that you think assassinating the President of the United States is a good idea and speak approvingly of Lee Havey Oswald and see how fast the Secret Service opens an investigation on you. There is a fine line between free speech and an indirect threat. Also when you are a memeber of the military you do lose some of your constitutional rights temporarily.

I have news for you too, Isabel1130 - just because the government does something 'all the time' doesn't mean it's okay. Do you think it's legitimate to police people's thoughts and speech? And this "indirect threat" stuff is nonsense. Allowing anything but a direct threat to trigger exercise of governmental authority is a one-way ticket to authoritarianism.

Tragedy Or Jihad? Both!

It is now being reported that the Major is Palestinian-American, not truly Jordanian-American.

On that item of his "being picked on" this is what I said on the Reason blog of the same topic:

John Tagliaferro|11.6.09 @ 9:56AM|#
From the article JB linked to:

"Retired Army Col. Terry Lee, who said he worked with Hasan, told Fox News that Hasan had hoped President Barack Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Lee said Hasan got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars, and had tried hard to prevent his pending deployment."

When you argue with the guys who are actually supporting the mission they volunteered for don't go crying that they hate you because you are Muslum.

And I will speculate a little, but from experience, the people who insist on behaving this way are usually trying to undermine the morale and the mission too.
**************

This is the same whining that a woman I met a few months ago was doing. Saying she and her Palestinian boyfriend had to leave New Mexico because the cops were "harassing the wrong Muslims." Turns out they were the right ones to watch, she just wanted to get away with a small-time illegal enterprise and her boyfriend is banned from legal reentry to the USA, for now.

This is the same whining that supporters of the shady Muslim money launderers and terrorism supporters in Buffalo did.

This is the same whining that "Jordanians" and Palestinians did in college. They would be a big giant pain in the ass about their "cause" and their "issues" then cry that the rest of us were bigoted because they were Muslim. Did not matter that the Muslims from Kuwait, Yemen, and anyplace BUT Palestine got along with everybody just fine.

I can't count how many times me and a Marine friend were told by these folks that we were "brainwashed" by the Zionists.

How on earth anybody can support this mentality is beyond me. I have stopped trying to discuss anything with anybody who expresses this nonsense. It is just a waste of time.

"you drop your Second Amendment right at the base entrance."

You drop several of your rights when you enter the army, including the one about free speech, particularly against the government. One often abridges (or at least self-curtails) one's rights when one takes any job, so I don't really see that as too big an issue.

"(Islam) is not a peaceful, 'live and let live' religion that occasionally gets abused by radicals. Rather, central to its tenets ARE violence and 'conversion' by the sword or death."

Then why isn't every single Muslim anywhere in the world taking up arms against the infidel? Because it IS open to interpretation. If it weren't, there would be an order of magnitude more bloodshed than there is in the world.

It's an incredibly repressive religion as it's practiced in many countries (and parts of the US as well, so much so that it's hard for many to grasp that anyone would follow it, whenther the observer believes in a diety or not. Of the major religions in the world today, I'd agree that it's the one that has modernized the least. But again, there are any number of people who follow it who have never raised a hand to another person (Or in the case of Muhummad Ali, were paid well beforehand) So I'm sorry, if it's not 100%, it's not endemic to the religion itself across the board.

You can make ANY belief system sound patently insane and dangerous. I could easily point to equally violent and wildly out of phase with civilization passages from other religions' texts and doctrines. And there are certainly people today who still follow those doctrines, to the letter. But they do not represent the standard or the majority of the religion.

To a (great) degree, it's distorted by the news, and not even on purpose. If you only knew what was on television, it would seem like planes fell from the sky constantly, because they don't report "25,000 planes landed safely today", they report "one plane crashed". Likewise, you don't see a news story that said "10,000,000 Muslims rode in subways, went to work, ate lunch and came home without eviscerating anyone". Becasue that is the norm, and the norm is not the news.

You can't (correctly/factually) say all black people are criminals, you can't say all Jews are rich and/or cheap, and you can't say that all Muslims want to kill us and make soap from our babies. Universals are not reversible: "All terrorists are muslim" (even that's not true, but work with me) does not mean "All Muslims are terrorists". The more people insist on perpetuating the stereotype, the stupider it makes them look, and potentially the easier it'll be for the ACTUAL dangerous people to attract more poor saps, convincing them that American hates them.

Follow the last link that Amy provided and then read the comments therein.

Here's a classic:

"First all I would like to preface my comment by saying that I am a non-violent person who is committed to non-violence and I never encourage others to do violence. That being said I would like to say that I hope this event teaches people in the military and elsewhere not to insult muslims. This man was harrassed for being muslim by people in the military and it is not right that people did that to him. People in the military and elsewhere really need to be more culturally sensitive."

I'm just so pleased that he was taken out by a woman, and also that she didn't kill him, because death is what he wanted and expected.

May he feel like a total failure for the rest of his miserable life.

"It's an incredibly repressive religion as it's practiced in many countries [...] But again, there are any number of people who follow it who have never raised a hand to another person. So I'm sorry, if it's not 100%, it's not endemic to the religion itself across the board."

I partially disagree with this. There's an important difference between Islam and old-testament Christianity. It's true that the Old Testament advocated many of the same barbaric practices that the Koran advocates. However, the New Testament redefined Christianity and got rid of a lot of that, and then Martin Luther redefined it further, and then Vatican II added a bit more. It became much more a coherent and modern reality system. Something similar happened with Judaism, although I'm not familiar with the details there.

On the other hand, there has been no redefinition of Islam -- in fact, the reform efforts of some Islamic early 20th-century leaders have since been reversed, as we've seen in Turkey. Neither Christianity nor Judaism today glorifies those who commit violence in the name of those religions. But Islam does. In fact, in the view of their religion's leaders, Muslims who do not participate in violent jihad are traitors.

I said in another thread that it's possible to view Christianity as a system of personal ethics, independent of the supernatural aspects. And from my limited knowledge, the same is true of Judaism and Confucianism. Not so with Islam, because in Islam, Allah rules by fiat. There is no system, and by definition, the average Muslim Joe is incapable of understanding the mind of Allah. There is no philosophical basis in Islam for laying out a system of ethics; all standards of behavior are arbitrary and subject to the whims of the religion's leaders. The average Muslim is not supposed to even think about it; they are just supposed to do as they're told. With that kind of setup, reform is all but impossible. And I suspect that that's the way the religion's leaders want it.

VB: I stand by my earlier statement. It is not an unfair stereotypical assessment to say that violence and jihad are inherent to the religion of Islam at its core. No, not all Muslims are terrorists. And as you pointed out, not all terrorists are Muslim. (Although, for the last 50 years or so, with rare exceptions, they have been.)

Certainly not every Muslim is foaming at the mouth to deliver bloodshed to the infidels. It takes a high level of commitment to embrace the lifestyle of a jihadist, and it's certainly not a comfortable one. But faithful Muslims who truly believe the Koran in its entirety and adhere to its tenets aren't vocally opposing acts of violence done in the name of Islam. The largely silent majority is giving tacit approval to such acts, at a minimum. How can they do otherwise? Certainly fear of retribution is likely a factor, but how does one speak out against one's faith, while still claiming it? Muslims who commit violence in the name of their religion have very strong support to be found in the Koran--while the opposition to such violence does not.

"The more people insist on perpetuating the stereotype, the stupider it makes them look, and potentially the easier it'll be for the ACTUAL dangerous people to attract more poor saps, convincing them that American hates them."

Once again, Islam is, by our modern standards, an old religion. They are not committing violence against us and the rest of Western society because they think America/the West *hates* them and they are resentful. They are doing it because there is no room in their religion for infidels to be tolerated. Period. They must either be converted to Islam or killed. (or subjected to a class of existence lower than the rest of society.)

Three cheers for Sgt. Kim Munley:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6906278.ece

"Islam is, by our modern standards, an old religion."

And yet, ironically, it's the newest of the Big Three. It's just had less (approaching zero) reform, as we've said.

The amount that the (or any) religion is updated seems to be connected to the quality of life of the place the followers live. If the arabs who had the oil wells were strict Muslims, they would not be selling oil, yet they do so happily. The Muslims in this country, compared to those who live in grinding poverty in the middle east, are far more willing to tolerate us callous infidels, and allow their daughters to wear less than a full-body tablecloth without running them over with a car. (Alas, there are exceptions)

I've said this before - I'd love to do a radio show called "Talk To A..." in which a representative member of a group, religion, what have you would get interviewed, give a solid cards-on-the-table explanation of their practices, take questions, and just generally open the doors. Things like that could/would really help understand what the average group-member thinks and believes, as opposed to the way they're portrayed in popular culture. The single best way to battle stupidity and superstition is with information.

"There are those who don't love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that"
--Tom Lehrer

Robert W.,

That being said I would like to say that I hope this event teaches people in the military and elsewhere not to insult muslims.

Then I publically warn them now to stay away from my blog post on this event. Amazin how we are not to insult them but they can shoot us, cut our heads off, etc.

For what it's worth, Hasan apparently took Islam very seriously. He had been disciplined & put on probation years ago for aggressively proselytizing every patient he met. At Walter Reed, he avoided female colleagues as if they had leprosy, even refusing to be in the same photo with them. He was single because he could not find any Muslim women who met his high standards of piety. And he was shouting "Allahu Akbar" at the top of his lungs during his rampage, which I don't think is a typical symptom of PTSD. More at the links here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/05/breaking-massacre-at-fort-hood/

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that this individual was motivated by Islam to do what he did.

Also when you are a memeber of the military you do lose some of your constitutional rights temporarily.

Actually you loose them all until you leave the military. Once you sign on the dotted line you are governed by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). You have no rights unless your superior gives them to you.

-Julie

It gets better. At a professional conference, Dr Hasan gave a lecture on the Koran, and how it says all infidels should be beheaded & set on fire:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/87980/

That being said I would like to say that I hope this event teaches people in the military and elsewhere not to insult muslims.

Bullshit. People of ALL stripes insult other people of all stripes, everywhere. This does not excuse those peopel who get insulted from taking up arms and KILLING PEOPLE. Ever.

"I have news for you too, Isabel1130 - just because the government does something 'all the time' doesn't mean it's okay. Do you think it's legitimate to police people's thoughts and speech? And this "indirect threat" stuff is nonsense. Allowing anything but a direct threat to trigger exercise of governmental authority is a one-way ticket to authoritarianism."

You are making a moral jusdegment not a legal one. You will not find a country in the world that meets your standards for non authoritariansim. The US is pretty benevolent by most standards and there is a huge difference between investigating someone and actually charging them with a crime. A direct threat usually merits charging someone with a crime but it can, does and should take much less for someone to start investigating you. Isabel

Also when you are a memeber of the military you do lose some of your constitutional rights temporarily.

"Actually you loose them all until you leave the military. Once you sign on the dotted line you are governed by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). You have no rights unless your superior gives them to you."

Julie, not true. One one small example, and there are many others, you still have the right to vote and your supervisor does not give you "permission" to exercise this right. He may to some extent circumscribe the time place and manner of your voting but has no right to deprive you of it. Not more than a civilian employer can do under the law. The UCMJ is not some authoritarian non constituitional justice system, it is extremely fair and soliders charged under it are most times represented by a civilian attorney.

I personally hope if this joker lives that he is tried by the State of Texas which imposes the death penalty and not under the UCMJ. Innocent or guilty I would much rather face a courts marshal then a civilian criminal court. The jury is better educated and more likely to reach a fair conculsion. In short, it is less of a crap shoot. Isabel (I was an army officer on active duty for seven years. I have a law degree also)

The UCMJ is not some authoritarian non constituitional justice system, it is extremely fair and soliders charged under it are most times represented by a civilian attorney.

Also note, it IS provided for in the Constitution, Article 1, gives the Congress the power to provide for a unique justice system for the armed services.

Isabel, true all. The entire military system is built with plenty of "fairness" into it for the individual servicemember. Certain aspects of your "personal freedom" you do give up, but until military service becomes mandatory, there's really no cause to bitch about it. You're told up front what you're getting yourself into. If you want to dye your hair purple and pierce yourself all over, go into a different line of work. It's that simple.

And as far as Uncle Sam infringing on civil rights by investigating suspicious freedoms of "expression", give me a break! Your civil rights go only so far as they are not a threat to mine...and the military, particularly, is sworn to defend against "ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic." I'm sure there will be alot of "lessons learned" and after-actions as a result of this tragic event....

"You are making a moral jusdegment not a legal one. You will not find a country in the world that meets your standards for non authoritariansim. The US is pretty benevolent by most standards and there is a huge difference between investigating someone and actually charging them with a crime. A direct threat usually merits charging someone with a crime but it can, does and should take much less for someone to start investigating you. Isabel"

On the contrary, it is both a moral and a legal judgment. We have become passive about accepting a level of governmental intrusion that would have dismayed the Founders and many who came afterwards. Actually, they wouldn't have even had the opportunity to be dismayed, since a British government that exercised that level of surveillance and control would have nipped the Revolution in the bud pretty quickly.

I'm not buying the argument that just because most countries are more oppressive, we should tolerate surveillance and investigation based on nothing more than political speech. If you believe that it's a good thing for the government to have this power, that's your prerogative, but I certainly hope you aren't selective in your application - i.e., you must have thought that the Department of Homeland Security's investigation of conservative groups was a-ok.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Oddly enough, it is the right of the People to bear arms and form militias--not the federal government. The founding fathers never intended a permanent standing army, and even dictated in the Constitution that any federal military had to be funded only annually. No long-term funding for a US military--written into the Constitution. What does that tell you how our founding fathers felt about a permanent military?

Some founding fathers, such as George Mason, lamented that there was not an outright ban on standing armies in the Constitution, and the 2 amendment is something of a compromise.

The current-day huge federal military bases, permanent and global, would be an anathema to our founding fathers, and are against the expressed will of the Constitution.

Strict constructionism, anyone? Oh yeah, except when not.

Obviously, we need a civilian volunteer military. This would prevent of the ossified fat and patronage that characterize our current military establishment.

And Amy is right--those soldiers should have never given up their right to bear arms. But, we citizens gave up control over militias a long time ago--now we are paying (and taxpaying) the consequences.

One-half of income taxes go to feed the military beast, wars and past obligations (pensions, debt from military spending). The huge entitlement programs you read about (Social Security etc)? are funded by payroll taxes.

You want an income tax cut? Well, cut the Department of Agriculture and the military. That is where the ossified lard is thick. You'll need a rock saw.

Either you think speech is okay even if it's unpopular, or you grant the government authority to initiate formal investigations against people based on the content of their speech...

Even a free society has the right to protect itself from its domestic enemies. And, as somebody else in this forum already said, investigating somebody is not the same as charging him for something.

BOTU,

Article 1, Section 8:
. . .
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Not annually.

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Note, the Navy is a perminant military branch per the Constitution. Not limited to two-year funding.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

(just pointing out what I was talking about in an earlier comment)

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Indicates that they knew Armies need structures that last more than a year or two.

"On the contrary, it is both a moral and a legal judgment. We have become passive about accepting a level of governmental intrusion that would have dismayed the Founders and many who came afterwards. Actually, they wouldn't have even had the opportunity to be dismayed, since a British government that exercised that level of surveillance and control would have nipped the Revolution in the bud pretty quickly.

I'm not buying the argument that just because most countries are more oppressive, we should tolerate surveillance and investigation based on nothing more than political speech. If you believe that it's a good thing for the government to have this power, that's your prerogative, but I certainly hope you aren't selective in your application - i.e., you must have thought that the Department of Homeland Security's investigation of conservative groups was a-ok."

I think you need to read some history and understand that this golden age of US History, that you point to where we all had "unlimed individual freedom" never really existed. Please point to some freedoms, (other than less gun regulation) that you believe people had in 1776 that you don't have now and then go read a few good books on Constitutional law and Colonial history up through the present day to understand how those freedoms have been expanded greatly in the last 200 years. Spend some time focusing on J Edgar Hoover among others. I would not have been able to vote prior to 1920, and in many states would have been forbidden to own property at the whim of the state or jurisdiction that I was in. Upon my husband's death I, and my assets could have well been placed under the legal control of my eldest son if I was lucky enough to have one, and he was of age.

As far as what other countries do, you have fallen into the same logical trap that most of the liberal socialists do. You envision that there is some perfect state of natural freedom out there, that existed somewhere in the distant past and it is attainable, never mind that you can't point to any actual examples. The US Revolutionary War was not really about "freedom" or "freedom from Taxation". It was about who was going to be in control and levy those taxes. As others have pointed out, but not necessarily on this board, our republic is an imperfect form of government but what I don't want it to be, or become, is an idealistic suicide pact. Isabel

This from the Associate Press:
"Officials are not ruling out the possibility that some of the casualties may have been victims of "friendly fire," shot by responding military officials."

So, are you still confident that "As in so many of these shootings, like the Virginia Tech massacre, this never would've gotten to the point it did if soldiers were allowed to carry around more than their good looks."

Considering the confusion over the number of individuals involved (at first thought to be three), it seems likely to me that had a good percentage of the soldiers been carrying guns a much greater bloodbath could have occurred.

Please point to some freedoms, (other than less gun regulation) that you believe people had in 1776 that you don't have now and then go read a few good books on Constitutional law and Colonial history up through the present day to understand how those freedoms have been expanded greatly in the last 200 years.

But the ability of the government to monitor us and restrict our speech has increased as technology increased. During USRW if I sat in my New England farm and bad mouthed the government making seditious threats, no one would hear me but my family or guests. Now, if I make an idle seditious treat to my closest friend...it is possible to be heard over a CSA wiretap, internet web crawler, video monitoring of a grocery store or apartment complex...our ability to speak freely is greatly reduced and our ability to have a life of privacy is also reduced. Because the government has the ability to monitor us so closely, it is a reasonable to question how it is using that information and under what circumstances monitoring is appropriate.

Speaking out against our government as private citizens should never be illegal. However, as a solider and a doctor you loose some of that freedom. A shrink should not be allowed to proselytize toward his patients. A solider is required to follow orders, even if he doesn't agree with them, as long as they are legal orders. However, to say that our freedom of speech hasn't been restricted over the years is a bit short sided, don't you think?

-Julie

John T.

Yes, two years, not one.

I will research the Navy more. I rather suspect the Founding Fathers meant for a permanent Navy to protect shorelines. Really, a Coast Guard. But no standing armies--that is clear frpm the sentiments of the time.

The overall tone of the Constitution is powerfully anti-militaristic, and I am sure you know that a permanently mobilized global army would have been detested, and even probably revolted against by the Founding Fathers. They detested foreign entanglements.

The vulgar glorification of the military that we have today is not patriotic, far from it. Madison's sentiments on war and standing armies are relevant today--

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Read that last sentence and consider the demagoging about war we have heard from our own leaders, and the huge fraud and waste associated with the Iraqistan follies.

"But the ability of the government to monitor us and restrict our speech has increased as technology increased. During USRW if I sat in my New England farm and bad mouthed the government making seditious threats, no one would hear me but my family or guests. Now, if I make an idle seditious treat to my closest friend...it is possible to be heard over a CSA wiretap, internet web crawler, video monitoring of a grocery store or apartment complex...our ability to speak freely is greatly reduced and our ability to have a life of privacy is also reduced. Because the government has the ability to monitor us so closely, it is a reasonable to question how it is using that information and under what circumstances monitoring is appropriate."

Don't confuse the ability to overhear with the ability to actually charge you with a crime and prosecute. I am reminded of Dr Mudd who spent several years in a federal prison after the civil war for setting a broken leg on a man who had just assasinated Presdient Lincoln which of course, poor Dr. Mudd knew nothing about. There is 19th century American justice for you. The governments ability to access mountains of information about you and your views and consolidate it have never been greater. You would be amazed how many crackpots are out there. However for all our sakes, the governnment has for the most part been extrememly bad at putting two and to together. The shear volume of e mail and cell phone traffic in this day and age make it unlikely that the government will randomly connect the dots on anyone. Just like the failure to connect the dots on the shooter at Ft Hood in time to actually do anything about him. My preference is to have the government listen to anything they want to anywhere, but to have many fewer things be an actual crime. There are too many laws in this country right now. That is what I fear most, the possibility of being an "accidental criminal" rather than the government knowing who I am talking to and what I am saying. The government in many instances puts its hands over it ears and screams na na na whenever it does not want to know something. For example, all those people that committed loan fraud during the boom. If the government had been willing to connect all those fradulent loans applications to actual tax returns and social security numbers, for the purpose of qualification and sales on the secondary market (Fannie Mae et al) I don't think we would have the mess that we do right now. Instead the government went out of its way to insure that lenders never asked for anything that would give them confidence that the borrowers could afford the loans and would not learn things that would prevent people from obtaining loans with fraudulent loan applications. Isabel

BOTU: I'm rather curious as to what your idea of national security in our current global posture should entail...how do you propose that we defend our national interests both at home and abroad?

And...not to state the obvious, but there are many, MANY things happening in modern America that would cause the founding fathers to roll over in their graves, the very least of which is a standing military, if in fact you are interpreting some of their perspectives correctly. I daresay that would not be the foremost on their list of items that cause them dismay and grief.

Also, you'll note that the beauty of the Constitution is that it does allow for amendments to be made and provisions to be made for changing times. They didn't write themselves into a corner, but rather defined basic principles and statutes that would make a successful democratic republic.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BQ6FV80&show_article=1

And this...this is just...rich. Of all the people who should not be giving advice on jumping to conclusions....

For the first time, I am not seeing major media paying the same respect for CAIR on this one that I have seen previously. Before, CAIR would speak and then announcers would echo what they said as if it was very important we all understand it. This time, although they paid lip service to CAIR by interviewing them about the story, I did not see respect for thier position. Did anyone else sens that in the media reports?

The shear volume of e mail and cell phone traffic in this day and age make it unlikely that the government will randomly connect the dots on anyone.

You may not understand the advances of data mining. It is an entirely separate sub-component of computer science with the goal of connecting those dots. Some places connect those dots better than others, but the ability exists and those dots are connected better than I suspect you imagine...however, for now you and I are not what they are looking for.

My concern is that this monitoring is a violation of my fourth amendment rights. It is search without probable cause. The government shouldn't be able to monitor us without probable cause, and yet that is what they continue to do. That is a loss of freedom.

You and I agree that there are too many laws and regulations in the country right now. However, I do not believe that giving the government greater access to my life, thoughts, and actions is the way to reduce legislation.

-Julie

"The overall tone of the Constitution is powerfully anti-militaristic, and I am sure you know that a permanently mobilized global army would have been detested, and even probably revolted against by the Founding Fathers. They detested foreign entanglements."

I can't believe I'm taking the trouble to address one of Asshole's rants, but here's the truth: A-hole, if the Army had been run the way you want it to be run during the mid 19th century, the Confederates would have won the Civil War, hands down. No question about it.

...if the Army had been run the way you want it to be run during the mid 19th century, the Confederates would have won the Civil War, hands down.

It was...and they nearly did.

They detested foreign entanglements.

Except when they were involving us in them.

Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and Hamilton all schemed with and against each other to get us involved in the French Revolution and the resulting Anglo-French wars in one way or another.

you must have thought that the Department of Homeland Security's investigation of conservative groups was a-ok."

If word got out that any of them were plotting to shoot the President or bomb a federal building a la Tim McVeigh, or even praising people like Tim McVeight, I would back that.

Just saw a full list of the victims. One of the deceased was a pregnant woman (Sgt) shot in the back.

Living out here in the Bay Area, I am going to go ape-shit on ANYONE that starts in with the blinded PC view on this incident.

I'm with Feebie.

Really not liking the 'let's don't jump to conclusions' line coming from the white house. There's a time to be cautious, and there's a time to go medieval on their ass with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. [Sorry, watching Pulp Fiction on IFC, and it's at THAT part]

BOTU you ae an idiot

At the time of the writting of the constitution Navy did not mean "coast gaurd"

Navy has meant war ships, troop transposts, battle readiness.

The definition of navy(no matter the language used) has been consistant for well over 3000yrs

How fucking stupid are you? Really?

Have I mentioned loathing CNN lately?

No?

I loathe CNN.

Here's the headline on CNN.COM:

Family: Ft. Hood suspect faced taunts

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's family and others have given insight into the man accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas. Hasan's cousin said the psychiatrist had wanted to leave the military: "There was racism."

They're too busy trying to explain this behavior to describe it. "Insight"! Mostly, I think this is about a liberal fantasy that evil can be controlled rather than challenged.

I don't care if this man was taunted. I don't care if he faced as much racial hatred as this country has ever delivered to a single human being (which, let's face it, seems unlikely in his case.)

He shot a pregnant woman (to death) in the back. Is there are better definition of evil?

Cousin Dave writes: I partially disagree with this. There's an important difference between Islam and old-testament Christianity. It's true that the Old Testament advocated many of the same barbaric practices that the Koran advocates. However, the New Testament redefined Christianity and got rid of a lot of that, and then Martin Luther redefined it further, and then Vatican II added a bit more. It became much more a coherent and modern reality system. Something similar happened with Judaism, although I'm not familiar with the details there.

It should also be added that while ancient Judaism advocated wholesale slaughter of certain peoples, unlike Islam, there are no open-ended standing orders for future violent acts. In other words, Jews were indeed called upon to eradicate certain people in certain circumstances, there is no provision in the Torah (or the Bible, for that matter) regarding the future.

It is true that some soi-disant Christians have given themselves license for attacking Jews, such as a friend of mine, who was chased home from school every day because he was a Jew and he supposedly killed Christ. That, however, is not in the Bible. "Thou shalt beat up Jews every day after school." Amy has also recounted similar experiences. I wouldn't have thought Amy to be responsible for the death of Jesus Christ in any way, but if she is, I must say she looks positively amazing for someone nearly 2000 years old.

>>>Living out here in the Bay Area, I am going to go ape-shit on ANYONE that starts in with the blinded PC view on this incident.

I'm with you too Feebie! In the Bay Area, though, we live among a high percentage of people who believe in this delusional PC. Since there's not much we can do about that, going ape-shit over comments from one of these ultra liberal dip-shits just ain't worth the energy.

>>>Here's the headline on CNN.COM:

Family: Ft. Hood suspect faced taunts

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's family and others have given insight into the man accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas. Hasan's cousin said the psychiatrist had wanted to leave the military: "There was racism."

Yeah, after reading that count me as one who loathes CNN too (with a Lou Dobbs exception).

I'd like to think CNN would mention, in some form, that the family claiming racism was the same family claiming this POS was a good American (then cut in with some of the anti American words associated with the POS). I'd like to think they also would mention a colleague of the POS reported one of the racism charges was bogus. But this is a story with racism and that is just too good for the PC crowd to water down. Further, a report claims, if accurate, Hasan would not have his picture taken with female soldiers based on his beliefs (BLATANT sexism). I'd like to think CNN would bring up the POS's sexism in the same "racism" conversation ("Blatant Sexist Murders Pregnant Soldier"). I'll give CNN credit if they do this though I doubt they will. The racism angle is the holy grail to the PC crowd. It's not to be diluted if possible.

"One-half of income taxes go to feed the military beast,..."

And with this error, the rest of your "reasoning' falls apart. It's 21%.

Get the basics right, or people like me will simply and easily expose your rants as simply a personal issue.

-----

On another topic, one might explain just why one thinks allowing military concealed carry will result in any adverse consequences, given that it's already proven not to be detrimental anywhere else.

Go out in town today. You'll probably pass someone with a conceealed carry permit.

And those are not the people you should worry about.

I hardly get to say anything nice about that guy I voted for, but I just got a cyber beating from my blogger buddy (he has some good comments above) about Obama's comment not to jump to conclusions. And he never was an Obama fan.

He probably shouldn't have said anything at all, but that is almost impossible these days. If he said anything more than what he said, the Palestinian terrorist defense team might have a claim for "command influence" and he could get off of the charges.

About this taunting business: I don't believe a word of it. First of all, he was a Major. Since when do privates & ordinary soldiers taunt a Major to his face on a regular basis & get away with it? Second, he was a doctor. I've never worn a uniform, but it seems to me that doctors & medics would be the very last people in any military to be deliberately targeted for abuse, since every soldier has to know that he might really REALLY need their services someday. Nope, this is just an attempt to portray this monster as a victim deserving of sympathy.

Read the eye-witness reports. This was not the act of some poor sot who was driven insane, then suddenly snapped & started shooting randomly in all directions. This was a deliberate, methodical attempt to kill as many people as possible, some of whom he had never met before.

I see TByte is projecting his prejudices about weapons based on speculation by the A.P.

I'll just say I trusted my fellow Marines, armed, with my life and they, me. We are at war, not peace, and it is unforgiveable that every NCO and officer at least, is not armed while on duty on every military base.

More Americans have been killed by American airpower than by the enemy's since WWII. I suspect TByte will call for abolishing the Air Force next.

Personally, I'd rather have risked friendly fire than been trapped in a room, unarmed, waiting for the Major or the Virginia Tech shooter to finish me off. You are free to feel otherwise, or to submit to the so called religion of peace.

MarkD, you've hit on a peeve of mine.

War must be declared by Congress. Since it has not been, "we" are manifestly not at war.

This is the source of the majority of problems with the conduct of business in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Congress gets to fondle the pages and interns while mouthing platitudes about suffering. The President - this one - is conducting operations overseas under exactly the same set of controls as GW Bush. Because war has not been declared, prisoners are in legal limbo as America hobbles itself - again.

The American public is foolish. It thinks a ribbon on the car is "support" for troops, and a great many other things that aren't true.

One of these is that we are "at war". Go look it up. Compare what we're doing to what "war" would look like.

And hold your Congresscreature responsible. It's not the President's job to declare war.

Martin (Ontario),

It took me a few hours to come around to your view. A few of my friends reminded me of people we knew in college and their claims. Blogger buddy posted something about his experience too. Plus he is fresh off that incident with Hamas girl.

All of my friends, me too, know all sorts of Muslim people of different races. It is rare to hear anything like what that palestinian terrorist Major was doing from the people we associate with. We have all heard it from people we do not want to be around.

BTW, Muslim bartenders are pretty cool. Like the Christmas Christians mentions in her post.

I may have overlooked someone else saying this, but the people yelling that civil liberties would have been violated by his being investigated for his praises of suicide bombers, etc., are missing something: the man is an officer in the Army, not a civilian spouting off. When you take that oath, and accept the responsibilities of command, you know damn well that things you say will have an impact on your career that they wouldn't have for someone not in uniform.

When the Army and the FBI got word of these posts very possibly coming from a serving officer, they had a responsibility to investigate, for two reasons:
First, if he did indeed write these things, and make these other statements, it damn well affects his ability to operate in the Army and affects everyone he treats and commands, and
Second, if he did not say them, he needed to be cleared of the suspicion.
So either way, by not doing a full investigation, they screwed up. And it's very likely that all these people are dead and wounded because of it.

The other Beth:
Frankly, I think we should demobilize, and go to national universal conscription at age 18, for one-year. All in--if we go to war, the Bush twins are on the front lines (or have equal chance). No more dodging responsibilities.
Mothball our fleet save for two carrier strike forces ( we have 11 now), and close all offshore bases. About 30 years ago there was an article in Foreign Affairs magazine on an all-sub fleet. It was compelling.
A few packs of hunter-attack subs, and a few nuke-missile launching subs is an awful lot of deterrent. No one would ever attack us, or invade us. Shipping lanes could be kept open easily.
Of course, 24 Saudi Arabian with box-cutters--or automatic weapons--can do tons of harm. But they can do tons of harm now. Terrorist do not need military platforms or nations to wreak havoc.
Happily, in a larger context, terrorists are only annoying, not much more. 3,000 people died in 9/11. I hate it.
But since then, about 100,000 people have been shot dead in the USA by guns, and another 300,000 died in auto accidents.
So, we are afraid of some punk terrorists?
The military we have today is one-half ossifed lard, one-quarter patronage, and one-quarter fighting force--and that one-quarter is much more than we need.
Remember, when we hire a mercenary-soldier, we are obligated to paying him for a lifetime. They can retire at 20 years and get health benefits, and pensions, until death. We spend $100 bil a year on VA already. I think spousal benefits can last even longer.

If we demobilize, we can mobilize in the future. WE did it and onw WWII in less time than we have been in Afghanie. The permanently mobilized military really cannot fight a war.

If we were citizen-soldiers, there would be no desire to get into foreign wars in which our interests were not a stake. And if we got in, the attitude would be, "This war is over in six months, if we have to blow them all the Kingdom Come."

Remember, we literally dropped nuclear bombs on civilians women and children in Japan. Twice. More than 100,000 died.

Now, we fight to limit casualties, especially ours. I can't blame the lone soldier. He is brave--but who wants to die in afghanistan propping up a narco-state, or in Iraq propping up an Shiite state?

This is sickness.

People need to stop saying this terrorist was sick or crazy. He was fighting for his side as a traitor to our Army.

> count me as one who loathes
> CNN too (with a Lou Dobbs exception).

After reading this and this, I've never been able to take Lou Dobbs seriously.

I don't think there are any cable TV personalities are worth admiration... The seeming heroism people ascribe to them is more about viewer convenience than anything else.

(And yes, this includes Hitchens when he goes on all those little shows with all those little men... He once quoted some authority in his life as advising that one should never pass up a chance to appear on TV. Sometimes he amuses, but as often, I'm reminded of the old Hollywood charicature of the faded movie star who'll attend any ribbon-cutting in the hopes of being asked for an autograph: "That man would go to the opening of a door..."

I don't think there are any cable TV personalities are worth admiration...

Brit Hume.

Blech ptooie.

crid writes......>>>After reading this and this, I've never been able to take Lou Dobbs seriously.

I don't think there are any cable TV personalities are worth admiration... The seeming heroism people ascribe to them is more about viewer convenience than anything else.

An interesting two stories on Lou Dobbs (though taken with a grain of salt due to a semi liberal source and a very liberal source). You will not get disagreement from me that Cable TV personalities can and will be blowhards/they will say things that make a thinking person go "umm, ok" (this apparently equals ratings often). "Loathe", however, was used, for me, in the context of CNN's PC angle on Major POS. I gave Lou Dobbs a pass on loathe because he most definitely is not PC (I suspect Lou would loathe CNN's headline too). Yes, he at times can at times be a dolt (as so many can be). MUCH better to be a plain dolt than a PC dolt.

Mark D. says: "I see TByte is projecting his prejudices about weapons based on speculation by the A.P."
Do I really need to point out that the supposition that if the soldiers on the base had been carrying weapons then fewer people would have been killed is, likewise, unsupported speculation?
And I see you are resorting to the all-too-common "straw man" asserting that I hold ridiculous assumptions on areas that are not related to the topic. Also, a pathetic response.
You would do well not to show up for a debate unarmed either, as you clearly have no clue how to go about arguing a point.

i-hole (BOTU), is your head up your ass for the warmth?

Frankly, I think we should demobilize, and go to national universal conscription at age 18, for one-year [sic].

It takes two years to train a combat infantryman today. So, under your plan, we'll have to go to war with a half-trained army. That's the kind of thinking that caused thousands of needless American deaths in early World War II.

Read any veteran's memoirs or talk to a veteran and you'll find they're in almost unanimous agreement that constant and realistic training is vital to surviving on the battlefield.

As one armored corp soldier told a reporter in Desert Storm I, "we died at Fort Irwin so we could survive out here."

Whatever the type of fighting (set-piece battles, urban warfare, etc.), training is key. You don't spend the money necessary for that kind of realistic training on a one-year draftee. And you don't win wars without it.

If we demobilize, we can mobilize in the future. WE did it and onw [sic] WWII in less time than we have been in Afghanie.

The hastily mobilized and badly equipped soldiers, sailors, and marines at Kasserine and from Pearl Harbor to Tarawa who died needlessly due to inexperience and outdated equipment might disagree with you.

The fight in Afghanistan is a different conflict than World War II. That war was a set-piece battle of field armies representing nation-states.

Remember, we literally dropped nuclear bombs on civilians women and children in Japan. Twice. More than 100,000 died.

After repeatedly dropping leaflets warning them the bombs were coming and to get out of town.

That Palestinian terrorist, 'disguised' as a US Army Major, has ties to the Muslim Bortherhood.

In other news, NYC Islamoscum praise the Fort Hood terrorist.

BOTU - so you want to emulate the Red Army - not a good call, for all its impressive size they only ever had a couple of divisions they could really rely on (the ones that did all the fighting in Afghanistan and Chechnya). The sorts of weapons you use now require years of training, not to mention the great strength of the US Army, the long-term NCO corps that maintain continuity and organisational memory.

And how is a sub only Navy going to keep shipping lanes open? The only offensive action a sub can take is to sink ships - no boarding, no inspections or warning off, just sink without warning. I doubt you'd be in favour of that...

After reading the MSM accounts I must conclude that this Major is suffering from Sudden Jihad Syndrome, accumulating over many years and aggrivated by Secondhand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The fact that he is a Major, but apparently nobody would follow his orders to convert to Islam proves what a racist military we have that can blatantly refuse the orders of a Major, just because he is Muslim, with no penalty.

/sarcasm

Isabel, may I ask where you received your law degree? I'm only curious because you don't sound like someone who has done any kind of serious study of constitutional law and history. While you are certainly correct in pointing out that we have made great strides in the past 200+ years with regard to making rights independent of immutable characteristics such as race and gender, our overall track record has been one of greater and greater government intrusion into the lives of private citizens. You already mentioned gun control, but the list goes on: income taxes, drug laws, massive administrative regulations affecting both businesses and individuals, the federalization of street crime, and of course the ever-increasing number of activities considered criminal. Most of this, as you surely know, is a function of the increasingly broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause in order to bring more social and economic activity under the umbrella of the federal government.