Please spare us talk of the “rule of law.” If that was the primary consideration, the U.S. already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal “enemy combatants” captured since 9/11.
Contrary to liberal myth, military tribunals aren’t a break with 200-plus years of American jurisprudence. Eight Nazis who snuck into the U.S. in June 1942 were tried by a similar court and most were hanged within two months. Before the Obama Administration stopped all proceedings earlier this year pending yesterday’s decision, the tribunals at Gitmo had earned a reputation for fairness and independence.
No one doubts these men’s guilt, but what if–what if–they receive reduced or no sentence because of some procedural rule that ought not apply to enemy combatants?
One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, the New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.
What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didnâ€™t cry â€œAllahu Akbar!â€ as they squeezed the trigger.
The delicacy about the religion in question â€” condescending, politically correct, and deadly â€” is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: â€œJersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center.â€
Ah yes, those Jersey men â€” so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.
â€œDiversityâ€ is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think. Likewise, a belief in â€œmulticulturalismâ€ doesnâ€™t require you to know anything at all about other cultures, just to feel generally warm and fluffy about them. Heading out from my hotel room the other day, I caught a glimpse of that 7-Eleven video showing Major Hasan wearing â€œMuslimâ€ garb to buy a coffee on the morning of his murderous rampage. And it wasnâ€™t until I was in the taxi cab that something odd struck me: He was an American of Arab descent. But he was wearing Pakistani dress â€” thatâ€™s to say, a â€œPunjabi suit,â€ as they call it in Britain, or the shalwar kameez, to give it its South Asian name. For all the hundreds of talking heads droning on about â€œdiversityâ€ across the TV networks, it was only Tarek Fatah, writing in the Ottawa Citizen, who pointed out that no Arab males wear this get-up â€” with one exception: Those Arab men who got the jihad fever and went to Afghanistan to sign on with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In other words, Major Hasanâ€™s outfit symbolized the embrace of an explicit political identity entirely unconnected with his ethnic heritage.
Mr. Fatah would seem to be a genuine â€œmulticulturalistâ€: Thatâ€™s to say, heâ€™s attuned to often very subtle â€œdiversitiesâ€ between cultures. Whereas the professional multiculturalist sees the 7-Eleven video and coos, â€œAw, look. Heâ€™s wearing . . . well, something exotic and colorful, letâ€™s not get hung up on details. Celebrate diversity, right? Can we get him in the front row for the group shot? We may be eligible for a grant.â€
The brain-addled â€œdiversityâ€ of General Casey will get some of us killed, and keep all of us cowed. In the days since the killings, the news reports have seemed increasingly like a satirical novel the authorâ€™s not quite deft enough to pull off, with bizarre new Catch 22s multiplying like the windmills of your mind: If youâ€™re openly in favor of pouring boiling oil down the throats of infidels, then the Pentagon will put down your e-mails to foreign jihadists as mere confirmation of your long established â€œresearch interests.â€ If youâ€™re psychotic, the Army will make you a psychiatrist for fear of provoking you. If you gun down a bunch of people, within an hour the FBI will state clearly that we can all relax, thereâ€™s no terrorism angle, because, in our over-credentialized society, it doesnâ€™t count unless youâ€™re found to be carrying Permit #57982BQ3a from the relevant State Board of Jihadist Licensing.
Ezra Levant, my comrade in a long battle to restore freedom of speech to Canada, likes to say that the Danish cartoons crisis may one day be seen as a more critical event than 9/11. Not, obviously, in the comparative death tolls but in what each revealed about the state of Western civilization. After 9/11, we fought back, hit hard, rolled up the Afghan camps; after the cartoons, we weaseled and equivocated and appeased and signaled that we were willing to trade core Western values for a quiet life. Watching the decadence and denial on display this last week, I think in years to come Fort Hood will be seen in a similar light. What happened is not a â€œtragedyâ€ but a national scandal, already fading from view.
It used to be that the pursuit of “diversity” in the form of affirmative action put some less qualified people in school or a job in place of a more qualified applicant. While stupid & unjust, such behavior rarely resulted in the deaths of 13 people and injury of dozens more.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.