Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I agree with most of this, but the more we learn about the warning signs, the more I wonder if it won't take a "public" airing of the laundry to get changes made, or even address what happened.
It's actually a really deep issue . . . were the warning signs ignored because, as some (particularly right-wing) pundits have offered, individuals didn't want to appear like they were singling out a Muslim? Were these issues fully examined and deemed noteworthy but ultimately unactionable (I really, really hope this winds up being the case)? Was it a communications break-down? It's traumatic and basically a one-off incident, but is it indicative of a cultural issue within the military (or the interaction between the FBI/law enforcement and the military, or similar)?
While the trial is basically open-and-shut, the ancillary issues are fascinating.
|
This is fasincinating no matter how you look at it, but yes, I think you have it right. Here's a question for you, however: if someone is known to have ties with Al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization, should he or she be permitted to be in the US military?