Krazy Bill Kristol, un-American, says Fort Hood killer should be put to death without a trial

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On Fox News the other day -- where else? -- Krazy Kristol, discussing Nidal Malik Hasan and the Fort Hood massacre, came out against due process, the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and, well, America herself:

I was very struck also by Janet Napolitano's comment, I hadn't read it before to see her say that, that the number one priority is to bring him to justice is such a knee-jerk comment and such a stupid comment. He's going to be brought to justice. He is not going to be innocent of murder. There are a lot of eyewitnesses to that. They should just go ahead and convict him and put him to death.

This isn't just stupid, it's appalling -- and rather un-American, and hypocritical, coming from someone who wraps himself in the flag the way Krisol does.

But was he kidding? Well, if pressed, he might back down and say he was just making a point that a guilty conviction is inevitable, but he seemed to be speaking seriously.

And it's typical of Kristol, just as it's typical of conservatives generally. They talk up America as the unrivalled peak of human history, as the exception, as a worthy hegemon, and yet they think nothing of tearing down the foundations of American democracy and constitutionalism. So they push for the unitary executive when one of their own is in the White House, dismissing Congress and the Supreme Court as lesser branches. And so they put down the justice system, along with its Constitutional supports, as an inconvenience when they want to put away "terrorists," alleged or not, without a fair trial, or when their bloodlust turns to state-sanctioned killing, or when they just want to impose their will on the people.

For the right, neocons included, it's often about power, not principle -- or, rather, power is their principle, and they don't much care for anything that might stand in their way, including the very basis of the American justice system.

Collateral damage after the Fort Hood massacre

By (O)CT(O)PUS

Inspiration for this post comes from a close friend, Lindsay at Majikthise, who questioned the journalistic integrity of one of our major news gatherers in: AP trafficks in innuendo over Ft. Hood shootings.

My interest in the Fort Hood story is more than causal. My daughter is a career military officer who was once stationed there, and it was from Fort Hood where she deployed on the first of four missions to the Middle East.

Years ago, I received one of those telephone calls that parents dread: “Dad, I am shipping out, and if you want to see me before I go, the time is now.” Immediately, I booked a flight to Dallas with a transfer to Killeen to spend what few precious days I could with my daughter. As the years passed, I would repeat this drama again and again.

Military life can be almost as hard on families as on soldiers. Holidays are less than festive when there is an empty place at the table. There is always the missing person at family milestone events … the succession of births and funerals that mark our days … and the skipped heartbeat before answering unexpected knocks on the door.

There were times when the telephone rang in the middle of the night, and it was the voice of my daughter who said: “Dad, in case you haven’t heard the news yet, there was a rocket attack but we are okay.”

Lucky for me, my daughter always returned home, shaken by flashbacks never discussed, but otherwise unharmed. Thousands of other families have been less fortunate. To date, there have been 4,362 deaths in Iraq and 918 in Afghanistan … the sons and daughters, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles of someone, but not everyone.

I repeat “not everyone,” because less than a third of one percent of our citizenry has a family member in the military. Most Americans bear witness to war from afar … from the comforts of home in front of televisions that report frontline news from thousands of miles away. Flip the channel. On any given day, the voice of Wolf Blitzer hawking headlines segues into the voice of Billy Mays plugging OxyClean, which merge into one continuous deafening screech. Accounts of war interspersed with crass commercialism create an aura of banality that deadens the senses … until some strange act of violence takes place on native soil and shakes Americans from their stupor.

Mass murder has become so commonplace, we are almost too numb to be shocked. Scarcely a day after the Fort Hood massacre, a disgruntled ex-employee entered an office building in downtown Orlando and opened fire, killing one and wounding five. How quickly we forget the carnage at Virginia Tech that left 33 dead or this massacre at Fort Hood 18 years ago that left 23 dead.

What makes this bloodbath different from others? It occurred on a military base deep in the heart of Texas, and the shooter is an Army Major with a foreign name: Malik Nadal Hasan.

MSNBC: “At least three gunmen involved.”

CNN: “One gunman “neutralized” and one cornered.”

FOX: “Three gunmen dressed in fatigues.”

CNN: “One shooter dead, two in custody.”

FOX: “M-16s used.”

ABC: “Gunman was a convert to Islam.”

TWITTER: “Hasan handed out Korans before the shooting.”

In retrospect, the headlines of the day were riddled with hearsay, and none of these accounts proved accurate or true. Have we grown so accustomed to junk journalism that we fail to notice anymore?

All too often, there are opinion makers willing to jump to conclusions and spin certitudes and platitudes before all facts are known. And all too often, there are bigots, demagogues, and political opportunists willing to spin false reports and half truths into inflammatory cants, such as the infamous Jerome Corsi, who wrote:

Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday's massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.

This statement was so outrageously false, Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University, issued an immediate disclaimer:

[Nidal Hasan] has no role on the task force, other than the fact that he attended these meetings as an audience member, as did hundreds of others.

The American Family Association, a conservative Christian group, posted a website article (caution: this link crashed my browser four times) calling for Muslims to be barred from military service. According to their spokesperson, Bryan Fischer:

It is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military (…) Yesterday’s massacre is living proof [sic].

The infamous Islamaphobe Dave Gaubatz said in this interview:

Politicians, Muslims, and law enforcement are concerned about a "backlash" against Muslims. Now is the time for a professional and legal backlash against the Muslim community and their leaders.

Even more ominous and disturbing, four Republican members of Congress … Sue Myrick [R-NC], John Shadegg [R-AZ], Paul Broun [R-GA] and Trent Franks [R-AZ] … want to bypass a formal FBI inquiry and conduct their own investigation, an initiative supported by the undead Senator from Connecticut whose image no longer reflects in Democratic mirrors.

There are compelling reasons for conducting a non-politicized inquiry through proper channels. Is Malik Nadal Hasan really an Islamic terrorist (a forgone conclusion in the minds of Islamaphobes), or does he fit the profile of other criminally disturbed personalities who have committed past mass murders?

The hype and hysteria in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre concerns me. There are thousands of Muslims serving in our military. Some are bullied, subjected to ridicule and scorn, called “towel heads” and “sand n***ers” by fellow soldiers. Muslim-Americans serve as soldiers, translators, and military liaisons with our allies in the Middle East, which include the Arab Emirate States, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkey, as examples. Muslim-American families make the same sacrifices and suffer the same anxieties as my family when their soldiers deploy overseas.

How does our country appear in the eyes of the world and our allies when bigots and hate-mongers insinuate themselves into the public debate? My question is more than rhetorical. These malevolent voices dishonor the service of our soldiers and sabotage their efforts.

A blogger who calls herself an American Black Chick in Europe puts this issue into proper perspective:

Why do some elements of American society attribute the actions of an individual to an entire group of people? I'm tired ... tired of generalisations thrown out at folks who have a different name, different religion, different skin color, different look, different ideas than what's considered "mainstream America.

I raised similar concerns at the blog of our esteemed colleague, Robert Stein of Connecting.The.Dots, when a fly-by troll steeped in Fuzzy Logic said this to me:

Well, thank goodness you spoke up and aligned yourself with the mass murderer at Fort Hood instead of with my comment.

How smug and offensive! These days, hyper-partisanship respects no boundaries. Sometimes I feel as if we are at war on two fronts: The terrorists who attack us from abroad and the lunatic fringe that assails us at home. We have turned into a nation at war with ourselves when our most cherished beliefs and values, including civil liberties and the rule of law, are no longer considered sacred and sacrosanct and must be defended on all fronts.

(Cross-posted at The Swash Zone.)

God is great. Bill O'Reilly? Not so much.

By Capt. Fogg

Blurry words and fuzzy logic are the tools of the deceiver. Take the word "terrorist." We're still trying to fit it into the Procrustean bed, or should we call it the Republican Bunk? In fact we can no longer distinguish between terror, the emotion or terrorism; the acts designed to produce terror. We're always arguing about who is a criminal and who is a terrorist but, always willing to help us find our balance, Fox News and Sean O'Reilly are on the job.

In order to keep the terror, angst, and anger flowing and the ratings high, it's important to keep the supply of terrorists visible and to keep them ethnic -- and here comes Sean Hannity to tell us that what makes a terrorist a terrorist is that he praises God before he terrorizes. It's not all that simple, though. He has to do that in Arabic, otherwise every foxhole would be full of terrorists of many faiths.

It's simple enough, however, to say that because Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly said Allahu Akhbar before shooting up Fort Hood. On the other hand, attacks from the bombing of Guernica to the Rape of Nanjing to the shocking and awing of Baghdad are not. Simple haters like simple rules for hating. They like simple things that can be used to create convenient groups: tropes like "political correctness" of which O'Reilly accused The Washington Post's Sally Quinn Wednesday night. It's much easier to condemn a group fabricated for the purpose than to address her reluctance to call the man a "Muslim terrorist":

You have a hard time saying the words "Muslim terrorist." I don't know why.

I do know why. If the only difference between Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, David, Son of Sam, Berkowitz, and Major Hasan is religion, it becomes awfully hard to launch the Fox Crusade against Muslims alone. So one hates along with Bill, or one is politically correct which means unwilling to hate along with Bill. One jumps to convenient conclusions with him or one refuses in that politically correct way, thus defining PC as smart and honest and responsible for people more logically adept than the Fox Fools.

One must be a hater of Muslims or a terrorist supporter, and without that assertion O'Reilly melts on the floor like the Wicked Witch. A nice binary, Good v. Evil choice to replace the kind of reasoning stupid people hate and fear and are incapable of, the kind of choice Lyin' Bill peddles like crack in the high school parking lot.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Pat Robertson says Islam "not a religion," calls for Muslims to be treated like Communists

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Is it even worth quoting Pat Robertson? No, probably not, and it's a waste of time to pay him any attention, not to mention to devote any space to him here at The Reaction or anywhere else. And yet, given his influence, or whatever influence he has left (and he does have many, many followers still), he oughtn't be dismissed so readily, for he speaks to a certain strain of noxious right-wing bigotry, theocratic bigotry, that is alive and well throughout much of American conservatism today.

The other day, writing about the Fort Hood massacre, I noted the bigoted reaction of many on the right, and, in Robertson, we have one of the most explicit expressions of that bigotry. At Think Progress, Matt Corley delves into it:

This past weekend, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned against allowing "anti-Muslim sentiment" to emanate from the shooting at Fort Hood by Major Nidal Malik Hasan. But that is exactly what some conservatives are doing. Dave Gaubatz, the controversial author of the controversial Muslim Mafia, called yesterday for "a professional and legal backlash against the Muslim community and their leaders." On his 700 Club TV show yesterday, Pat Robertson claimed that Islam is "not a religion," but "a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination":

ROBERTSON: That is the ultimate aim. And they talk about infidels and all this, but the truth is that's what the game is. So you are dealing with not a religion. You're dealing with a political system. And I think we should treat it as such and treat its adherences as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group. Well, it's a tragedy. Our hearts go out to the families who suffered. But those in the Army should be held on account for the fact they let this man loose.

And there you have it. In Robertson's view -- and he is certainly not alone in holding it -- Muslims, including American Muslims, ought to be blacklisted and persecuted.

As I have said before, Americans and Christians ought to be outraged -- and embarrassed that Robertson is one of their own.

Quote of the Day: Andrew Sullivan on religious extremism and the Fort Hood massacre

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Given how little we know, it is ridiculous, as Joe Lieberman did, to call the Fort Hood massacre a "terrorist attack." (It seems to have been an act of violence, not terror, as the point was not to terrorize, or necessarily to act to effect political change, which suggests the creation of abject fear beyond the act itself. Still, it's clear we don't really know yet what it was. At the very least, it is premature, and somewhat irresponsible, given how freely the word is thrown around post-9/11, to call it terrorism.) On the flip side, it is ridiculous to claim, as some have (such as James Fallows), that the attack was essentially meaningless.

Without rushing to prejudicial conclusions, after all, we do need to consider the possibility that Nidal Malik Hasan's Muslim faith played at least some role, if not necessarily the dominant one, in what happened.

Here's Andrew Sullivan, responding to Jeffrey Goldberg, with a very sensible take:

I did not leap to that conclusion in this case as the primary reason for the attack because we didn't fully know the entire picture -- and still don't. But as the pieces fall into place, it seems increasingly clear that Nidal Hasan's faith -- and the conflicts it presented in the context of the war on Islamist terror -- was absolutely relevant in this horrifying massacre of servicemembers. It may well have been combined with individual stress, exposure to others with PTSD, fear of deployment, psychological disturbance, etc. But that it was a critical factor seems to me important to note.

But every case is unique.

If the man is not part of any wider conspiracy or terror group, it is silly to treat him the way we would a Qaeda cell, for example, as Lieberman seems to want to do. And the random murder spree was not designed to wound the US militarily in any strategic way. But religion is poisonous when it fuses with politics and deploys violence to control or punish others -- and Hasan's increasingly Wahabbist version of Islam is about as crude a conflation of religion, certainty and violence as one can imagine.

This applies to the extremes of Christianity and Judaism as well, of course. I do not think you can understand the assassination of abortion doctor George Tiller without grasping the religious motivation of his killer, just as I think a brutal gay-bashing by a thug with Leviticus tattooed on his arm gives you a good idea of the religious motivation for the beat-down. Ditto, I might add, when we discover that it was a fanatical Jewish settler -- transposed from America -- who gunned down people at a gay walk-in center in Jerusalem. Religious fanaticism -- in Texas or the West Bank or in Gaza -- is a dangerous, dangerous impulse in an increasingly fundamentalist age. We should not balk at saying that as plainly as we can and demanding that religious leaders condemn the violent and extremist members of their respective flocks. And we should try much harder to find such extremists in the military and do a better job at monitoring them or throwing them out.

None of this justifies the bigoted, knee-jerk reaction of many on the right, of course, but I agree that these points need to be raised, just as they would in the event of a similar incident involving a Christian or Jewish extremist -- or any other religious extremist, for that matter.

Hasan's Muslim faith shouldn't shield him from such an investigation, and rejecting one extreme (right-wing bigotry) with another (avoidance, perhaps for political reasons) is dangerous insofar as it both perpetuates ignorance and allows the ignorance of the right to prevail. Denialism is no counter to bigotry, and, here, an effort to deny that Hasan's faith had anything to do with it simply comes across as an effort to cover up the truth. We need to know what really happened, what really was behind the massacre, even if that means an uncomfortable, and discomfiting, investigation into what role Hasan's faith played in the killing. (While also recognizing, of course, that other factors, related or not to his faith, were undoubtedly involved and that the motivations behind the attack were likely multiple and complicated.)

For while Hasan may not be connected to al Qaeda, and while the massacre may not have been a terrorist attack per se, it is important that the truth, however ugly, be known, not least as more about Hasan and his reprehensible beliefs comes out, so as to try to prevent such incidents from happening again and to counter efforts to spin the incident for partisan political purposes.