7 killed in shootings at Fort Hood, Pentagon says

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I stand (sit) corrected on both counts. My knowledge of military courts is pretty much limited to the 19th century.

There is a part of me who doesn't want him to be martyred, either. I also don't want to see any of the Armed Forces put on trial for not reporting Hassan for his prior "problems", either.

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.

[honeychile]

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?

[Kappamd]

Originally Posted by honeychile

This is fancinating 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?

They shouldn't be allowed in the US PERIOD, let alone the military.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Kappamd

They shouldn't be allowed in the US PERIOD, let alone the military.

But proving somebody has concrete ties to terrorism is near impossible to do except for higher ups.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by honeychile

This is fancinating 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?

Of course he shouldn't be allowed in the US military. That's the reason why the process should likely be put on trial. What did the Army (or FBI) know? When? What was done about it? Why/why not?

I don't think the shooter had substantive ties to al Qaeda - everything I've seen was deemed harmless/for research purposes by those "in the know" - but the very specter makes me reject the notion of "not putting the military on trial" in this case.