In the massive media coverage following Major Nidal Hasan’s killing spree at the military post, I have heard over and over again about the death toll from the tragedy.
But seldom mentioned is the most hidden victim — soldier Francheska Velez’s unborn baby. Velez was on maternity leave when she stopped at Ft. Hood, where she and the child she carried in her womb fell victim to Hasan’s bullet.
Vitale goes on to make the case that Hasan should also be charged under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci and Conner’s law, named for the pregnant woman and her unborn child murdered in California by the child's father, Scott Peterson.
Unfortunately, aside from the fact that the Obama Administration's Justice Department would be unlikely to prosecute, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is part of civilian law,not the Uniform Military Code of Justice. And Hasan is being tried under military law.
In passing, I should mention this. During the height of Arafat's War on The Jews, I subscribed to several pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian e-mail lists under an alias.
I eventually got hardened to it, but I will never forget the ghoulish glee with which many of these people would greet the news of the successful murder of an Israeli child and especially that of a pregnant woman. The usual phrases they would happily use on those occasions were things like 'two for the price of one' or 'double bonus'.
Concepts of empathy, humanity and mercy are absent from people with Hasan's mindset.
The sooner we realize it,the better.
"Concepts of emapthy, humanity and mercy are absent from people with Hasan's mindset." With all due respect I don't think this is true. I actually think it is much worse than this. It would be one thing to not understand such concepts. It is another thing to understand these concepts and not practice them.
ReplyDeleteI think they understand these concepts perfectly after all they and their media surrogates are constantly accusing America and Israel of being without compassion, without mercy, and in general down right evil. I think they feel like empathy, humanity, and mercy should be shown to them and those like them but not to those who don't hold their views. This is differenct from these concepts being "absent."
I think it would be best to say they practice such concepts hypocritically or inconsistently. What is clear is these people pose a far greater threat to America than Imperial Japan ever did or likely ever could have. This does NOT necessarily mean the same approach will be used that was used to defeat the Imperial Japanese. Different enemies fought in different times will require different strategies to defeat.
In order to defeat this enemy, we must first recognize the threat, Then we must acquire the moral confidence in ourselves and our civilization to actually be able to defend ourselves.
Friday, 13th November 2009
ReplyDeleteCharles Krauthammer has issued a scintillating new column ( Medicalising Mass Murder ), re the media's politically-correct reaction to the massacre, at the realclearpolitics dot com web-site. ( An idiot columnist at Time Magazine managed to blame ' Jewish extremists ' for people's reactions to the terrorist attack ! )
--Regards,
Dragon/Dinosaur
So, according to your logic, FF, all the unborn Muslim babies who died in Iraq & Afghanistan, inside their mother', would ALSO increase the number of causalities in these two war zones. What would that be? 200,000, 600,000, 1 million?
ReplyDeleteHave you ever sweated a nanosecond wondering about that?
Thanks for clarify
Adam Dennis
Hello, Adam.
ReplyDeleteIf you really see no difference in those situations, that tells us a lot about you, now doesn't it?
How many kids did jihadis DELIBERATELY and knowingly target for murder in Israel, in Belan, in Mumbai, London, Madrid, Darfur..not to mention the MUSLIM kids whom were killed by jihadis and their enablers in Iraq, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran...
The list is a pretty long one. And I doubt YOU sweated over that for more than a nanosecond, since you obviously just regurgitate instead of thinking.
And BTW, how many Muslim kids'live were saved because the evil BushHitler decided decided to send massive aid to the Tsunami victims? How many were saved BECAUSE we went into Kosovo, Irag and AFghanistan? And I say that as someone who wqsn't a particular fan of th elast president, and who thinks we had other much more worthy targets to hit in winning this war.
One more thing. I know there are a lot of Muslims who think the way you do. The unfortunate thing is that many that do not may be likely to suffer by being placed in the same category and tarred withthe same label if this stuff continues and they are too afraid to take a more active role in stopping it. A boatload ofMuslim clerics declating somebody like Hasan a takfiri ( apostate) would be a welcome start. AFter all, murder is supposed to be against Islam, no
Thanks for the c-l-a-r-i-t-y (a hint - use spellcheck boyo. it helps even if you're trying to appear American, and not some jihadi tool).
Regards,
Rob
Ah? Earth to self-righteous, Rob, FF. Josh:
ReplyDeleteIraq is spelled "I-r-a-q" not with a "g" like you did in your above post. So it appears we could both use a little "spellcheck".
But getting back to our original analysis and spitfire commentary.
#1) Like you, I am perfectly American, and when it comes to the deaths of Muslim children (alive or unborn), I do know something of what I am talking about, because I am presently serving as an infantryman in Iraq. (I suspect you will doubt this, so allow me to continue.)
#2) Thank God that, so far, no children or civilians have been killed on our watch. But it has happened here and will continue to happen as long as bombs and midnight raids fall or occur on or within civilian populations. Yes, that is the nature of war. But, you did not make an argument about the nature of war.
#3) Gen McCrystal is well-aware of the widely reported killings of Muslim civilians. That is partly why he's endorsed a stronger counter-insurgency strategy and requested more ground forces for Afghanistan.
#4) As a Special-Ops guy, the general knows it does us no good, strategically or to America's reputation, which is a huge strategic concern, when U.S. troops can neither protect innocent civilians, women and children caught in the cross-fire (much less themselves) and we have to resort to an air campaign with mixed short-term results that include killing a few bad guys while as often, if not more so, slaughtering non-combatants.
#5) While I consider the Ft. Hood Maj. a monstrous criminal worthy of the worst our military legal system can convict him of, what bothers me is how callously he betrayed those he was serving and was scheduled to serve beside, as well as those he was treating for PTSD..etc., I think you and Ms. Malkin are lacking any proof, at this point, that Hasan deliberately targeted the pregnant Pvt. Velez. And that is an important distinction if the rules of logic are to apply to your and Ms. Malkin's arguments.
#6) It seems that Malkin is just throwing red meat into an already politically charged fray and you are eating it up?
#7) Perhaps, your outrage would be better satisfied by what I've been reading in Stars & Stripes?
It appears that prosecutors are debating charging Hasan with the death of Pvt. Velez's unborn child. Like you, that additional charge and guilty conviction I would also welcome.
However, and most probably, that additional 14th charge, if sufficient evidence supported it, would most likely be negligent homicide, murder in the 2nd (not premeditated like the others appear to be) or manslaughter.
(Regardless of what Stars and Stripes is reporting, which you can read here: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=66075)
And this distinction is what irked me about your jumping on the very flawed logic of Malkin's bandwagon without first thinking about it.
According to your logic: all deaths of the unborn in a military or terrorist situation are chargeable offenses -- regardless of the intentions of the accused or the perpetrator(s).
Think about that for a second when you are in someone like me's shoes?
Can you possibly see another point of view on this very, very impassioned topic?
Regards,
AD
PS: Should you still doubt that I am a soldier, I'm sure you could post where this server that I am using is and offer proof to yourself as well as your readers?
For the sake of argument, I'll accept that you're serving in Iraq. Thanks for that, watch your six and come home safe.
ReplyDeleteI also accept that you're 'a perfectly good American', although I take exception to your inherent premise that American Muslims somehow are not, or your imputation that I, might feel that way. Check the blogroll on this site sometime.
I continue to disagree with you when it comes to what I see as your basic point,( even though you've qualified it a bit) that there is essentially no difference between Hasan and our warriors fighting overseas.
Having said that, I think you can see where I took what you wrote as a defense of Hasan rather than arguing a legal point.I find that entire argument to be typical of those who try to rationalize jihad killings.
The nature of war is obvious, but as you point out, it doesn't include deliberately targeting civilians.I would have thought that the point was so obvious that I didn't need to elaborate on it.
As far as your objection to charging Hasan with the death of the unborn child goes, I point out specifically that Malkin is letting her emotions get the better of her because the law cited is not part of the Uniform Military Code of Justice,but of civilian law, which is quite different as we both know.
Seeing that this is the case, I fail to see what your argument is...unless you buy into the fallacy that there is no difference between Hasan and you and your squad mates.
We could have quite a conversaton about General McChrystal's ideas on COIN and why what worked in Iraq ( to the extent it did) is unlikely to work in Afghanistan, especially not now that Obama has alienated what passes for a government there, but that's a conversation I hope you'll wade into when I publish my latest on Afghanistan shortly.
Regards,
Rob
Josh,
ReplyDeleteWhat are you trying to say here?
There is no LOGICAL difference between Maj. Hasan (a soldier) and infantrymen (also soldiers) if you and Malkin are saying, absent proof, he should be charged with the 1st degree murder of an unborn child WITHOUT first ascertaining evidence that he intentionally targeted Pvt. Velez BECAUSE she was pregnant -- otherwise, FF, you are consigning all of us who might inadvertently kill a pregnant woman to the same charge.
What don't you get about that very plain analogy? And don't throw the irrelevant yoke of jingoism or patriotism into this discussion.
Stick to the facts and how they apply or don't apply to the given circumstances.
Regards,
AD
It boils down to this: American criminal law is largely founded on the concept of "intent" and "mindset". Until you can reasonably demonstrate those two things, it is near impossible to legally charge someone with a serious crime -- violent or otherwise.
Hello Adam,
ReplyDeleteWe still have a basic misunderstanding.
Your argument, as I understand it is that there is no difference between Major Hasan waking up one morning ,giving away his possessions to his neighbors and shooting down Pvt. Velez and her unborn child or a jihadi blowing himself up in a shopping mall and you and one of your squad mates in a combat situation inadvertently taking out a pregnant female being used as a human shield by a jihadi.
I maintain that there is. It's a simple as that.
As for proving intent and mindset, unless Hasan meets the legal definition of criminal insanity and you can demonstrate that he was not responsible for his actions, then intent is proven, prima facie. The fact that he may not have seen one of his victims does not absolve him from guilt.His INTENT was obviously to kill as many US soldiers as possible.
I might point out that several war criminals who were tried and executed at Nuremberg and elsewhere attempted that exact same defense.
Are you seriously suggesting that he likely didn't know what he was doing, or simply caved under the stress?
If so,you'll have to explain his other statements and actions on record that support justifying what happened at Fort Hood.
You earlier voiced your astonishment and disgust that Major Hasan could do this to his fellow soldiers. However, if you do a littl edigging, you will find out that Jihadis inour armed forces have carried out a number of attacks.
And what you will find out about Hasan as we get into it is that far from having any remorse over his actions, he is proud of what he did - and indeed a number of Muslims have already proclaimed his deed as heroic.
In any event, the charges relating to Private Velez's unborn child based on the law Malkin quotes is unlikely to apply, because it is part of civilian law and not the UMCJ.
Regards,
Rob