Skip to main content

View Diary: New York Times (again) Conflates Extremist Views With Violent Action (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Below you're claiming that Hasan wasn't (0+ / 0-)

    a terrorist or a member of a opposing military force. But you're supporting Mr. David Mizner's claim that fort hood attack wasn't a terrorist act because it was a military target. Your logic doesn't make sense.

    •  It makes complete sense... (0+ / 0-)

      Mizner's point, which I have seen him make repeatedly, is that you can't call an attack on our military an act of Terrorism because it isn't against non-combatants.

      I take the view that either Hasan's horrible act falls into the Terrorism vs Legitimate Military Target paradigm, or he is just a criminal.

      Those who want to call him a Terrorist are choosing the first paradigm, which bring with it certain a legal framework and definitions.  And this framework clearly shows that his attack on a military base was not Terrorism.

      •  In that case Hasan is an enemy combatant (0+ / 0-)

        not just another criminal who attacked an American military base.

        •  Yes, if you believe the AUMF is as broad... (0+ / 0-)

          as the current Administration has been interpreting it, then Hasan was an enemy combatant.  Of course, they didn't try to charge him as one because declaring a US citizen to be an enemy combatant in a mukily defined war would set off most people's bullshit detectors.  Plus, the US legal system is prefectly capable of dealing with people like Hasan.  

          I tend to think that he was just a deranged person who snapped and did a terrible thing.  But then again, I have always thought that John Kerry was right when he said that "Terrorism" (I use quotatin makrs because the term is so manipulatively used) is a criminal matter, not a military one.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site