Justice seen not to be done 16

How passionately, profoundly, unalterably President Barack Obama loves Islam is demonstrated by the story of Major Nidal Malik Hasan. 

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a phsychatrist in the US army, was sentenced to death in August 2013 for killing 13 people and wounding 32  at the military base of Fort Hood in 2009.

He said that he did it for the Taliban, the enemy that the US army was fighting a war against in Afghanistan.

He is a traitor and a mass-murdering Islamic terrorist.

A military court tried him for murder and attempted murder and condemned him to death. He is imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. He will live there for years, in comfortable and privileged conditions, while his case is slowly reviewed by appellate courts.

Due process is being scrupulously observed. Justice is being done.

Or is it?

We quote from an article by Michael Daly at the Daily Beast, dated August 6, 2013:

Nidal Hasan’s victims must suffer twice — first when they were shot by the army shrink turned jihadi, and again as the government calls the murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood “workplace violence”.

As U.S. Army psychiatrist turned jihadi Nidal Hasan finally goes on trial for shooting 13 fellow soldiers to death at Fort Hood …  the government continues to classify the 2009 attack: “Workplace violence”.

In what might be termed the audacity of nope, the government has declined to call this al Qaeda–inspired mass murder an act of terrorism because to do so would be “unfair to the victims”.

Orwell’s Ministry of Truth could not do better.

The official reasoning is that it would jeopardize the case because, as stated in a Pentagon memo, “defense counsel will argue that Major Hasan cannot receive a fair trial because a branch of government has indirectly declared that Major Hasan is a terrorist — that he is criminally culpable.”

That has not stopped the government from calling the 9/11 attacks anything but terrorism. The 9/11 memorial at the Pentagon has on display the Purple Heart, the medal awarded to all the soldiers who were killed or injured there that day.

But the Purple Heart has been denied the soldiers who were killed or wounded at Fort Hood. And, because they were classified as victims of simple calamity rather than of combat, they and their families have been denied the accompanying benefits. A number of them say they have not even been able to secure adequate care for their wounds.

And, perhaps in part because people assumed that the army would take care of the soldiers as it would any other fallen and wounded warriors, there was no huge outpouring of financial support for them as there would later be for, say, the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings.

To her great and everlasting credit, nobody has been more vocal about all this than one of the two heroic police officers who took Hasan down and ended the carnage.

“Betrayed is a good word,” Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley has said of the way the soldiers have been treated.

Munley speaks up on behalf of the soldiers even though as a civilian she would be ineligible for the medal or the benefits, even though she was wounded in the attack.

And Munley has more than enough cause to complain about how she and her equally heroic comrade, Police Sgt. Mark Todd, have been treated themselves. …

Maybe you saw them on television seated beside the first lady at the State of the Union address, Munley still in pain from the bullet wound in her leg.

But surely they received something more than that gestural “honor”? Medals? Compensation? Promotion? An award ceremony? Official thanks on behalf of the nation?


You may not know that both of them were subsequently laid off due to budget cuts.

You also may not know that Todd suffered a stroke this past Christmas, two days after returning from Afghanistan, having gone to work there for a civilian contractor when his heroism at Fort Hood failed to save him from being “excessed.”

The stroke apparently left him unable to speak, but he has nonetheless been placed on the list of potential witnesses as the trial gets under way at Ford Hood. …

Munley almost certainly will testify at the trial. Her lawyer, Reid Rubinstein, reports that she is as ready as ever to do whatever duty requires.

She is presently honoring a request by the prosecutors to refrain from public comment during the trial. But you can be sure she will have plenty to say afterward. And likely little of it will be about her own troubles.

In the meanwhile, Rubenstein has joined with another attorney, Neal Sher, in filing a lawsuit against the government on behalf of Munley, a number of the shot soldiers, and their families. The suit notes that the army and the FBI ignored repeated warnings that an increasingly militant Hasan was bent on jihadist violence.

The suit charges that, among other things, the authorities “knew or should have known that Hasan was abusing his patients, who were American soldiers returning from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, by calling them ‘war criminals’ in the course of psychiatric treatment sessions, and promising criminal prosecution against them because these soldiers had killed Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

How nuts is that?

Imagine coming home shaken up by the war and seeking psychiatric help and having this guy call you a war criminal?

Imagine later hearing that this same sick shrink was allowed just to spout lines from the Quran in place of the formal oral presentation required of all new doctors.

And that Hasan’s communications with al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki were initially excused as research into radical Islam.

And that Hasan spoke of being “happy” when a fellow jihadist shot an American soldier to death outside an Arkansas recruiting station in June of 2009 — a soldier who would also be denied a Purple Heart.

And that five months later Hasan allegedly went with a gun into an area where soldiers were either returning from a deployment or preparing to deploy [and shot them].

Among those who were shot was Lt. Col. Juanita Warman, a physician who … died while using her body to shield a fellow soldier, an act that should have earned her a medal for valor as well as a Purple Heart.

Also shot was Pvt. Francheska Velez, just back from Iraq, completing paperwork for education benefits and pregnant with her first child.

“She lived for a short time in terrible pain and agony, knowing that she and her child were dying,” the lawsuit says.

The suit also says that just before the gunfire, Hasan was heard to shout, “Allahu akbar! 

What happened with that lawsuit Rubenstein and Sher brought against the government on behalf of the victims?


Sean Hannity, a sharp thorn in the side of the Left (and long may he continue to be so), brings to public attention a statement the two lawyers have issued five years after the terrorist crime was committed.

Neal M. Sher and Reed D. Rubinstein, attorneys for over 120 Fort Hood terror attack victims and family members, issued the following statement [November 5], on the fifth anniversary of that attack:

Five years ago today, the terrorist Nidal Hasan yelled “Allahu akbar” and, wearing the uniform of an U.S. Army major, began slaughtering Americans. Fourteen innocent people lost their lives and over fifty were injured. For five years, Hasan has bragged of committing this atrocity in the name of Islam to protect the Taliban.

Hasan’s victims saw their lives forever changed that terrible day.  But the real tragedy of Fort Hood was that our government could have easily prevented their suffering.   The U.S. Army and FBI had long known that Hasan was a jihadist with al-Qaeda connections and, simply by following their own standard policies and procedures, easily could have stopped him before anyone was hurt. Instead, because of what the Senate Homeland Committee’s investigation called “political correctness”, the government willfully averted its eyes to Hasan’s jihadism.  Hasan should have been arrested. Instead, he was promoted and given other special privileges.

Incredibly, the government’s policies of political correctness and special privileges for Hasan continued even after his killing spree.  

The day after the carnage, on November 6, 2009, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that U.S. authorities “were taking measures to quell anti-Islam sentiments” in the U.S. and that Hasan “does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith”.

On November 8, 2009, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said on the Sunday talk shows that the “real tragedy” of Fort Hood would be damage to “diversity” policies and publicly warned against “guessing at Hasan’s motive,” though the government knew of Hasan’s jihadist motive from the start.

The special privileges for Hasan also continued. Pfc. Bradley Manning, who gave Wikileaks documents, was kept naked in an isolation cell and charged with aiding the enemy. But Hasan, who killed for the Taliban, was not similarly charged or confined. Instead, he was given uniquely comfortable accommodations and special food; permitted to wear a beard, a privilege denied loyal American soldiers; and allowed to give Al-Jazeera an interview praising anti-American “mujahadeen”.     

Though the government went out of its way to coddle Hasan, it had no kindness for his victims. First, they were used as props in staged “mourning” ceremonies to benefit political leaders, then they were personally promised assistance by President Obama and top generals, and finally they were shoved down a memory hole. Hasan’s terrorism became “workplace violence”, meaning that those who survived the charnel house were denied support, benefits and mental health treatment. In some cases, soldiers were physically and mentally abused for requesting treatment of Fort Hood-related injuries.

Five years on, the government has done nothing to help the victims of Fort Hood. …

Now, from our new Congress, we call and hope for action. First, we ask for equity. Congress should provide similar benefits to the Fort Hood victims as it provided to the 9/11 Pentagon victims. The government should not be allowed to dodge its culpability.

Second, we ask Congress hold oversight hearings to investigate and hold accountable the Department of Defense and the White House for their post-attack policies, conduct and abuse.

Will some justice in this case at last be done?

  • And why the hell were none of these soldiers armed? As recently as the late 1970s it was routine for at least officers and senior NCOs to carry their sidearms on base. But that changed; I remember standing guard in the early 1980s with an unloaded weapon and no ammunition, and was told to use my M16 as a club if attacked.


    These people are in the profession of arms. They should be armed as a matter of course as they go about their duties. If that were the case, the traitor Hasan likely would have been stopped very quickly.


      Animal, personally I agree with your statement allowing military personnel to carry sidearms on post.

      From what I can find, the policy of carrying of firearms on post is mostly up to the post commander. The official Army guidelines are here: http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r190_14/head.asp

      Some feel that Clinton ordered this policy in 1993 but it doesn’t appear like he did this, according to Snopes:

      “A change in U.S. Army regulations issued in March 1993 (just two months after President Clinton assumed office) did affect the issue of personnel carrying firearms on military bases, but that change in regulations was issued by the Department of the Army and was not implemented by President Clinton via an executive order.

      Moreover, that change in regulations came about in response to a U.S. Department of Defense directive issued in February 1992, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and not at the sole behest of President Clinton.”

      Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/baseguns.asp#fc7yiQpDbVtH9KOQ.99

      • Yes, note that I didn’t make any comment as to whose policy it was – but post 1984, it seems to be pretty much Army-wide.

        During my tenure in Uncle Sam’s colors this was policy everywhere I went except for Saudi Arabia/Iraq in 1990-1991. (I was in from 1984 to 1992, re-activated in 1996 for nine months.) The policy is what it is – but why aren’t more post commanders changing it?

    • Absolutely, Animal! Totally agree.

      The soldier guarding the memorial in Ottawa who was recently killed by a Muslim terrorist had no ammunition in his gun. He apparently tried to use it as club, but was shot dead.

      Canada, like Britain, has made it hard for its citizens to be armed. But not to properly arm their soldiers! At least the Sergeant-at-Arms in parliament had a loaded gun and used it.

      It’s ridiculous as well as tragic that Americans elected a pacifist to lead them.

      • H.L. Mencken said “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” I guess we’re proving him right.

      • Don L

        Pacifism or intentional…Obama’s ‘rule’ has reached and passed into criminal and IMO treasonable!!!

    • Don L

      Too often I hear this nonsense that the military is the only thing government does well. Really? Even winning a war is obsolete. It began with the death of an OATH having meaning.

      Obama immediately after ‘transparently’ winning election wiped out 200+ top general officers…not because of too stout and strong as leaders…no, that couldn’t be. And, eventually placed old spineless and gutless Hagel in as SecDef .

      Anyway, there are several plausible and comprehensive ideas about privatizing defense. Keep in mind, hollywood makes RoboCop…ya know, where free enterprise is always corrupt: “The Private Production of Defense” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe — http://mises.org/document/1221/The-Private-Production-of-Defense.

      And, (relative to your comment below) the Founders knew what democracy is…that’s why they gave us a Republic. “If we can keep it” Benjamin Franklin told the lady who asked. But, as you know, since then, the monarchists, Whigs/mercantilists and progressives/socialists have done much to eradicate Republic and covertly substitute Democracy.

      Finally, hand salute…happy Vets Day!

  • liz

    This is one of an extremely long list of crimes against Americans that Obama is responsible for that require justice.
    Slow torture and death – for both Hasan and Obama – would be a step in the right direction, but you can never bring back the dead.

  • Don L

    1989…USS IOWA BB-61…#2 16-inch gun turret blew up The US Navy blamed a Gunner’s Mate Hartwig of having intentionally caused the detonation: bad homosexual relationship resulted in suicide (claim of homosexuality disproven). Sandia labs, at request of disbelieving Congress, determined explosion was the result of over rammed age deteriorated powder bags (dated to the 1940s). The Navy denied this and closed the case as indeterminable. Forty-seven sailors were killed.

    The military has a history, probably an entire department within each branch, dedicated to covering up its mistakes. Under Obama, they are now covering up the war against us. A new IMO treasonable practice. And, I am infuriated that anyone in uniform would be complicit with the Domestic Enemy in the Oval Office.

    • That’s a very distressing story, Don. And I believe you about the cover-ups. The Hasan story is not only a cover-up of our war with Islam, it’s a deliberate decision by Obama and his DOD to coddle a Muslim at the exorbitant expense of non-Muslims.

      • Don L



        Had his name been “O’brien” or “Polwinski” instead of Hasan, and he was found to be a member at one time of The Tea Party, the attack would’ve been labeled a domestic “terrorist attack!”


    Great story. I was stationed at Fort Hood for basic training in January, 1966 and after returning from Vietnam in May of 1968, so I am very familiar with the post.

    As far as military ‘medal’ recognition, the soldier will always suck it up, not needing medals for doing the right thing.

    I was witness to acts of courage in Vietnam. Acts where no one got anything but the satisfaction of knowing they did what was necessary for their companion’s survival!

    This travesty of justice can be explained rather simply; it is the politics that a certain brand of “Hope And Change” has brought to our country and our military by this beast living in the White House!

    To state that his actions and in-actions anger me would simply be an understatement!!!

    • I believe you about the soldiers. They are not clamoring for the Purple Hearts the victims deserve, nor would they. The families of the dead should, however, get the same benefits that the families of other soldiers get who are killed by the enemy. What’s preventing this is Obama’s insistence that it was not an act of Islamic terrorism that killed them, when it certainly was.

      A separate case is that of the police woman and the policeman who stopped Hasan. Not only were they never rewarded in the least degree – they were fired.


        Jillian, I couldn’t agree with you more!!

      • Don L

        I wonder how much military gear the city got for their politicized SWAT enforcement squads? Me skeptical…nah! LOL