In my discussion with Jason Zengerle about Nidal Hasan’s killing of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, I insisted that “we need to know a little more than we do” before branding him a terrorist. Well, we still don’t know enough, and will certainly know more if and when Hasan goes to trial, but I think the latest reports on his contacts with Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi point toward a conclusion, which is that he was not a terrorist.
According to Washington Post reporter Spencer Hsu, Hasan, who had attended Aulaqi’s mosque eight years ago, reintroduced himself to the radical cleric a year ago, and had been engaged in an email correspondence with him. The precise details of their correspondence have not been publicly revealed, but the cleric’s message to his followers is known: in a message to his followers this July, the cleric blessed those who “attack government armies in the Muslim world.” He added, “Blessed are those who fight against them and blessed are those shuhada [martyrs] who are killed by them.”
Again, it’s not known whether Hasan saw himself following the cleric’s teachings, but it is very possible that he did see himself in that light, which is why he chose to kill his fellow soldiers rather than, say, randomly murdering shoppers at a mall. And in that case, he wouldn’t have been engaged in terrorism, which seeks primarily to sow fear among an adversary’s supporters rather than to inflict military casualties, but in what he saw as a direct act of war. He was on the battlefield, but he had decided to change sides. What’s the operative distinction between an act of war of this kind and an act of terror? It requires less planning; it may be even harder to detect or anticipate; and the means will probably not justify the ends.
Hasan could still have been motivated partly by personal resentment toward the military because of the way he saw himself as having been treated. And he could still be seen as deranged. After all, killing thirteen GIs at Fort Hood isn’t going to win the war for the Taliban. But if Hasan was acting in accordance with Aulaqi’s teachings, he was purposefully joining the war against the U.S. military.
Print
COMMENTS (9)
"But if Hasan was acting in accordance with Aulaqi’s teachings, he was purposefully joining the war against the U.S. military."
Well, yes and that is called treason. Which is what he should be charged with along with murder.
"But if Hasan was acting in accordance with Aulaqi’s teachings, he was purposefully joining the war against the U.S. military."
Well, yes and that is called treason. Which is what he should be charged with along with murder.
"...He was on the battlefield, but he had decided to change sides. What’s the operative distinction between an act of war of this kind and an act of terror? It requires less planning; it may be even harder to detect or anticipate; and the means will probably not justify the ends. "
"an act of war"? The "means will probably not justify the ends"? Are you kidding? Is murdering unarmed soldiers thousands of miles from a combat area wearing the same uniform an act of war? Treason, yes. Murder, yes. Act of war, no. And under what conditions or in what alternate universe does Judis think either such means or such ends is ever justified let alone "probably not"?
"...He was on the battlefield, but he had decided to change sides. What’s the operative distinction between an act of war of this kind and an act of terror? It requires less planning; it may be even harder to detect or anticipate; and the means will probably not justify the ends. "
"an act of war"? The "means will probably not justify the ends"? Are you kidding? Is murdering unarmed soldiers thousands of miles from a combat area wearing the same uniform an act of war? Treason, yes. Murder, yes. Act of war, no. And under what conditions or in what alternate universe does Judis think either such means or such ends is ever justified let alone "probably not"?
I think Judis has now entered the territory where one debates how many angels can dance on the heads of a pin. If we grant that Hasan is a murderer and that he was engaged in treason (cuz you can do that in an opinion magazine), why is it so important to defend him against charges that he was also engaging in terrorism?
I think Judis has now entered the territory where one debates how many angels can dance on the heads of a pin. If we grant that Hasan is a murderer and that he was engaged in treason (cuz you can do that in an opinion magazine), why is it so important to defend him against charges that he was also engaging in terrorism?
wildboy, "...why is it so important to defend him against charges that he was also engaging in terrorism?"
Beats me. Also mystifying why Judis is trying to frame this as an act of war versus an act of terrorism. Two non sequiturs do not a sequitur make.
wildboy, "...why is it so important to defend him against charges that he was also engaging in terrorism?"
Beats me. Also mystifying why Judis is trying to frame this as an act of war versus an act of terrorism. Two non sequiturs do not a sequitur make.
Beats me too. I think he is just arguing the opposite of what Marty is arguing, just for its own sake. Which may be a time-honored tradition, but that doesn't make it either enlightening or correct.
Beats me too. I think he is just arguing the opposite of what Marty is arguing, just for its own sake. Which may be a time-honored tradition, but that doesn't make it either enlightening or correct.
Because the imprecise use of words destroys our ability to speak clearly, and therefore think clearly about important issues? Is that not reason enough to care whether a particular act of violence is or is not terrorism? If not, then it doesn't matter whether or not we use the word, since it means nothing and cannot possibly help us understand or defend against any actual threat.
If shooting uniformed soldiers at a military facility is "terrorism," then all acts of war are by definition terrorism, and by meaning everything, "terrorism" means nothing. Whether the soldiers in question were armed or not is not at issue when deciding whether the act was terrorism; military personnel in uniform a ... view full comment
Because the imprecise use of words destroys our ability to speak clearly, and therefore think clearly about important issues? Is that not reason enough to care whether a particular act of violence is or is not terrorism? If not, then it doesn't matter whether or not we use the word, since it means nothing and cannot possibly help us understand or defend against any actual threat.
If shooting uniformed soldiers at a military facility is "terrorism," then all acts of war are by definition terrorism, and by meaning everything, "terrorism" means nothing. Whether the soldiers in question were armed or not is not at issue when deciding whether the act was terrorism; military personnel in uniform are by definition legitimate military targets. In certain circumstances, shooting an unarmed soldier can be a war crime -- as it clearly is here -- but the distinction between targeting civilians versus targeting soldiers is fundamental to the definition of terrorism.
rhubarbs "...If shooting uniformed soldiers at a military facility is "terrorism," then all acts of war are by definition terrorism, and by meaning everything, "terrorism" means nothing. Whether the soldiers in question were armed or not is not at issue when deciding whether the act was terrorism; military personnel in uniform are by definition legitimate military targets. In certain circumstances, shooting an unarmed soldier can be a war crime -- as it clearly is here -- but the distinction between targeting civilians versus targeting soldiers is fundamental to the definition of terrorism. "
Do you really beleive that this was an act of war? If so, then for which political entity at war wit ... view full comment
rhubarbs "...If shooting uniformed soldiers at a military facility is "terrorism," then all acts of war are by definition terrorism, and by meaning everything, "terrorism" means nothing. Whether the soldiers in question were armed or not is not at issue when deciding whether the act was terrorism; military personnel in uniform are by definition legitimate military targets. In certain circumstances, shooting an unarmed soldier can be a war crime -- as it clearly is here -- but the distinction between targeting civilians versus targeting soldiers is fundamental to the definition of terrorism. "
Do you really beleive that this was an act of war? If so, then for which political entity at war with the US was he a soldier? Under what part of the Hague Conventions are unarmed soldiers wearing the same uniform in the same army considered a "legitimate military target"?
treason, ruse of war, fine, these are crimes punishable by firing squad, try him, convict him, then shoot him and stop these parsing of words. TNR has turned into what the meaning of Hasan is, I say why give the mongrel the satisfaction of dwelling on the mongrel's motivations? Screw him and axe the bastard.
treason, ruse of war, fine, these are crimes punishable by firing squad, try him, convict him, then shoot him and stop these parsing of words. TNR has turned into what the meaning of Hasan is, I say why give the mongrel the satisfaction of dwelling on the mongrel's motivations? Screw him and axe the bastard.
blackton, What also disturbs me are what seems to be Herculean efforts to create a fish farm worth of semantic red herrings i.e., his actions were "acts of war" vs "terrorism" versus murder and treason, as if to imply (with apologies to Clausewitz) that his actions were a "continuation of politics".
blackton, What also disturbs me are what seems to be Herculean efforts to create a fish farm worth of semantic red herrings i.e., his actions were "acts of war" vs "terrorism" versus murder and treason, as if to imply (with apologies to Clausewitz) that his actions were a "continuation of politics".