When it comes down to it this is just a question about semantics. Is Major Hassan a terrorist or someone who committed a terrible act?
He is most certainly a traitor, and as he was a member of the military when he murdered his fellow soldiers a court martial is clearly the proper venue for his trial. But I'm fuzzy on the label we stick him with. If he was part of an organized cell, led by others bent on doing harm to the United States I reckon we can call him a terrorist. But if he did this by himself with no particular urging from an organized group is it still terrorism?
I'm content to simply label him a traitor and let the military come to its own conclusion as to what to do with him, but I am very curious to learn what his motivations were. Did he consider what he was doing a legitimate act of war, thus making him a POW in his own mind? Or was this a suicide bombing done "American style" with guns instead of bombs, making him a terrorist in his own mind? Or, did he really not want to go to war and lose control and just start shooting?
Another observation here, much has been made of his statement that "I'm a Muslim first and an American second." I've seen quite a few multiply bloggers proclaim "I'm a Christian first, and an American second" Many would bristle at my equating the two statements, but Major Hassan is little different than Tim McVeigh, who no doubt would have stated that he was a Christian first. One of the founding principles of this country is that there is no religious litmus test. The idea that any of us hold our theology at a point where we think its OK to kill our fellow citizens over differences (sometimes very minor) is mind numbing.
4 comments: