The only good news out of the Fort Hood massacre is that U.S. electronic surveillance technology was able to pick up Major Hasan's phone calls to an al Qaeda-loving imam in Yemen. The bad news is the people and agencies listening to Hasan didn't know what to do about it. Other than nothing.
Next week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) will convene the Homeland Security Committee to find out if someone in the Army or FBI dropped the ball on Hasan. At Ford Hood itself, grief has been turning to anger as news of possible dropped balls has emerged.
Earlier in the week at Fort Hood, President Obama spoke about the consequences of doing nothing. He named and described each of the 13 dead. That properly gave individual reality to what soon will become "the victims of Fort Hood."
This is how it always goes. For about a week after these awful incidents—such as the USS Cole bombing in Yemen (year 2000, 17 dead)—the rest of us feel, just a little, what the surviving families feel. This week, 13 American families are shattered, forever. It's a big deal, the biggest deal there is.
On Tuesday night at 9:06 p.m. in Virginia, the state executed the Beltway sniper, John Allen Muhammad, who gunned down 10 in 2002. The day before the execution, the father of a dead daughter described why he would witness it:
"I want to see what he made me see. He forced us to look at our little girl laying in a coffin. I want to see justice done. I want to see him take a last breath. I want to be able to describe it to the rest of the family."
Pretty rugged. But that is what they are feeling at Fort Hood. They think Hasan should have been caught. The reason we erect an apparatus of surveillance and intelligence in what some don't want to call the war on terror is to avoid this death and unfathomable grief.
The national grief won't last.
In our time, nothing was bigger than the nearly 3,000 killed on September 11. But anyone who got involved with the development of public policy then knows that for the next seven years the battle never stopped over the details of the Patriot Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, then Guantanamo, then waterboarding, renditions and secret prisons and all the other issues that for some could be summed up in two words: "Bush-Cheney."
This will never come up in the Lieberman hearings next week, but I think that nonstop policy battle is why Hasan's overseers dropped the ball.
The most-heard reason for the possible failure is political correctness. No doubt. But Sen. Lieberman's committee should avoid making this its main line of inquiry, because that is a problem without a policy fix. It minimizes the real problem.
The problem is confusion. The combatants at each end of the spectrum in the war over the war on terror know exactly what they think about surveilling suspected terrorists. But if you are an intel officer or FBI agent tasked with providing the protection, what are you supposed to make of all this bitter public argument? What you make of it is that when you get a judgment call, like Maj. Hasan, you hesitate. You blink.
Now everyone thinks the call was obvious. But it wasn't so obvious before the tragedy. Not if for years you have watched a country and its political class in rancorous confusion about the enemy, the legal standing of the enemy, or the legal status and scope of the methods it wants to use to fight the enemy.
In war, uncertainty gets you killed. It just did.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently described in these pages the fight over renewal of the Patriot Act, expiring at year's end. At issue is "lone wolf" authority—the ability to monitor a target not connected to a terrorist organization or foreign power, such as Zacharias Moussaoui, the "20th" 9/11 hijacker.
Mr. Mukasey noted bills sponsored by Democrats to narrow the scope of surveillance. This led to a debate in our letters between Mr. Mukasey and Sen. Russ Feingold over the meaning of "foreign power" and whether search warrants were or were not obtainable in the "lone wolf" surveillance of Moussaoui.
***
Everyone has seen the pictures of inconsolable grief amid the coffins of Fort Hood. Only one person can resolve the confusion that let this happen: the president.
This is the president who told his attorney general to decide if the CIA officers who water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be held criminally liable.
But two weeks ago, Mr. Obama met 18 coffins returned from Afghanistan. Whatever he decides about the Afghan troop deployment, what won't change is that over there or here at home, they will keep trying to kill us.
To give us better odds of protection than we had last week, President Obama should do two things: Call off the CIA investigation. Then call in the guys who didn't make the right call on Hasan and ask why not. Then, whatever set the bar too high, lower it. His "base" won't like it. So what? What he saw in Texas was worse.
Write to henninger@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A23
Crave Maternity
What a coward. 'Ooh, I'm scared, let's abandon the Constitution! Let's kill or kidnap everybody anywhere who might possibly in some small way not like us!'
1plus the writing in this piece is terrible.
2surveillance of anybody who is "different" isn't going to keep anybody from wanting to kill us.
3What should we do to protect us from Virginia Tech and Columbine type shootings (which claimed more lives)? How low should that bar go?
4monitor everybody at all times. duh.
5What is he suggesting? We should just assume all muslims are terrorists and round them all up? Im not sure he answered the question of "why Ft. Hood really happened?"
6i don't think any questions were answered here. bunch of jibberish if you ask me.
7I agree with the last two comments here (Roar & snarky)
8Lower the bar to what? The surveillance bar is already set illegally low, especially when we're talking about American citizens currently residing in America.
9Ignoring the substantive ...umm...argument, his writing is atrocious.
It sounds like a rant on a website for someone who wants to avoid doing school work.
10No one suggests all Muslims be investigated no more then monitoring everyone who is a member of the NRA if you are looking for the next Ruby Ridge group. There are filters that can be put in place that would lead you to finding an islamofacists without STARTING with the fact that an individual is a Muslim. It would be appropriate to follow a lead started by a rant on a known Al-Qaeda site, or speaking with a terrorist suspect where we already have a tap on that terrorist’s phone. No one suggests we start tapping the phones, or hack the computers of any one who is a follower of Islam on a “fishing expedition”. The bill of rights is not a suicide pact.
11i think you're right GP, it's just hard to tell what the point of this editorial is because the writing is horrendous.
12zeze, I'm distracted by the cuteness of your avatar.
13em, he is by far the greatest distraction ever created...enjoy.
14Are you liking the new album? Is he swinging by your part of town anytime soon? I'm not sure when he hits Chicago, but I always have a little room in my schedule (and my wallet, unfortunately
) when he and the boys are in town. Le sigh.
15I don't really know what Daniel Henninger is trying to say, I agree with the previous posts, his point isn't really well conveyed. I guess what he says is the tragedy at Fort Hood happened because of political correctness and the fact that it prevented intelligence officers from reporting the call to Yemen.
1) Blaming incompetence on political correctness is rich. If these intelligence officers failed to report on the call, maybe we should question the efficiency of these people and of the system which was put in place with the Patriot Act. Apparently, more money, more means and the infringement of civil liberties don't work. Let's try something else.
2) I refute the notion of race and social profiling implied in this article. What we should concentrate on is BEHAVIOR profiling. A muslim going to the mosque ? Who cares ? A muslim who goes to Pakistan or Yemen for 3 months and then comes back and start hanging around with fundamentalist groups ? You want to look into his story. The same goes for anyone, whichever race, religion or social background they have.
16It might help to prevent more mass shootings if we more carefully profile people who buy guns.
Authorities visited the home of a convicted child molester 60 times and yet missed or never reported the fact that he had a child living there - is that a conspiracy or incompetence?
17well said tulipe!
18Wow, Tulipe - you said everything I was thinking but you did it much more eloquently than I could have ever done!
19It's very easy to knock the "PC" excuse when you've not spent any time in the American military.
20I don't think it just extends to the military.
We have to consider the message we send when we say "Be vigiliant, alert someone if you think there is suspicious behavior" but then allow those who are vigiliant to be publicly humiliated and allow those who get accused of that behavior to sue in civil courts etc.
Why would anyone say anything? What's in it for them? Is it worth the risk?
Look at that story with the imams on the plane from a while back, they were exhibiting suspicious behavior (chanting, sitting only at the emergency exits). Passengers alerted the crew, the imams were removed and what happened? The passengers were accused of being racist and the airline got sued, I think the passengers got sued too.
It's a mixed message and I can't completely blame someone for not standing up and taking the risk.
21"It might help to prevent more mass shootings if we more carefully profile people who buy guns. "
Why is that ok but profiling others is not? Either its ok to profile everyone, or its not ok to profile anyone. You can't pick and choose based on your own ideology.
22Dave, I'm from a big military family, and have asked several members about the whole PC thing that keeps being brought up. They all have disagreed that "PC" anything played a part in this.
Having worked for the government in close contact with many in the FBI and CIA, I would say from my own experience that they do NOT ignore information to be "PC".
23Well we have evidence that people spoke up. We have evidence that there was an investigation going on.
I don't think we have enough evidence to completely dismiss the PC angle, but I don't think we have enough to completely accept it either.
I guess we'll find out more during the upcoming investigations.
24I don't see how this author can say Moussaui was a "lone wolf" who wasn't involved with a terrorist organization, when he was involved with 9/11.
I think that with the Fort Hood case, it is about the military and how they handle those with in their ranks. Remember when it was suggested that military personnel might be at risk for recruitment from extremist groups, and I remember people saying that it was an insult to our military...instead of a reality that we need to face.
I do think that we need to find out why this man wasn't fired earlier, when Walter Reed's review of his job performance was so awful. People are quick to say it was probably because of his religion, but there are many ways in which employers can be sued for wrongful termination. I have also heard that it can be very hard to get fired in the military (but that is hearsay, of course). I think it is clear they avoided firing him, but lets find the true factual reason. Jumping to conclusions only makes us repeat mistakes.
Tulipe made a great point, " I refute the notion of race and social profiling implied in this article. What we should concentrate on is BEHAVIOR profiling.'
25In contrast to the barrage of naysayers, I think this is a very clear and well written article. As to not seeing Moussaoui was a lone wolf, the lone wolf provision to FISA is often referred to as the "Moussaoui fix." The case for setting the bar lower, as the author suggests, is that it keeps more Americans safe. I think it's more than worth it and fortunately so do a great many Americans. I'd bet everyone at Fort Hood would think this a good idea.
26One has only to review the evidence against Hasan to assess that something was seriously amiss. After seeing his Powerpoint presentation from Walter Reed, what else can one suggest besides "we don't know what to do here." If he were a German suggesting neo-Nazism, there would have been no hesitation at all in what to do. Even today Nonie Darwish (author of Cruel and Unusual Punishment) was denied her right to speak at Columbia (and tomorrow at Princeton) because of Muslim objections. Isn't this the place where they welcomed Ahmadinejad with open arms? It is pathetic that this happens in the United States.
There is far more to suggest that it is this political correctness which has, in turn, caused a significant loss in the ability to act on information. In addition, president Obama has been bending over backwards to appease every Middle East government, with the exception of Israel whom he has thrown under the bus.
Henninger is absolutely right that it is time to lower the bar. If a few people become a little upset, I don't see that's a big price to pay for the safety of the many. I'm still upset at the terrorists for what I have to go through at an airport!
When exactly is this administration going to be responsible for anything? Constantly going back and blaming things on the Bush administration is wearing thin. The Democrats have had control of both branches of the legislature, and the executive. Any mistakes in policy or law made under the Bush administration should have been corrected long ago by this administration and this congress if they are so obvious to everyone concerned.
27Grandpa I believe you pose an excellent question. This administration and the dems are fully in control and thus they completely are responsible for the outcome of all these matters plus I completely agree Eleu,it is time to lower the bar for the safety of many.
28Well I agree in that I would like the blame Bush drum to stop beating, but I disagree in that I don't think this admin has had nearly enough time to "turn things around" or whatever they intend to do.
It hasn't even been a year yet, so I'm not sure how much of a "long ago" really exists.
29Comment # 27 is the first reference to Bush outside of the article. If you look at the record, Hasan's career, some of his questionable behavior and the complaints about him do go back to the Bush years, so it would be fair, if you believe political correctness was an issue, to look at its possible contributions to a p-c atmosphere.
What happened to that old slogan 'these colors don't run'? Is fear causing people to revise that notion?
30unfortunately the way this administration has "turned things around" so far, I dread seeing the outcome of their policies after a full year.
Our country is spiraling out of control under this administration- over 10% unemployment, out of control spending, a disasterous healthcare package, terrorists on trial in civilian court, economy lousy, housing market flat, Afghanstan policy ??? etc
We need to stop this administration and their socialistic policies.
31"It hasn't even been a year yet, so I'm not sure how much of a "long ago" really exists."
@Haus : I think Einstein would tell you that "it's all relative"...
@Eleuthera : I seem to remember that when Napolitano supported a report saying that returning veterans were listed as potential terrorist risks to the US as well as "rightwing extremism" including groups opposed to abortion and immigration, there was a collective uproar everywhere in America. So if you're going to lower the bar, you have to allow veterans and soldiers and people who purchase weapons to be closely monitored as well.
If it's political correctness when people ignore a threat coming from the muslim community, what is it then when you can't criticize or say ANYTHING bad on soldiers and veterans and therefore blind yourself about a threat which might very well be coming from this particular group of people? Should the police keep an eye on the Moussaouis of America yet ignore the McVeighs in the country ?
My point is this : are you ready to lower the bar for everybody ?
32@ Elllla :
Economy lousy : well, yeah, there's an economic crisis right now. So the economy is lousy. How can you expect to fix in months a situation which has been looming for 20 years (from Reagan to Bush 1st, Clinton, Bush 2nd)?
10% unemployment : goes with the economy. I don't think a Republicans would have fared better on this front, given the severity of the crisis.
Housing market flat : well, if you believe in the "invisible hand of the market", then the situation should resolve by itself - we live in a cycle-economy, there was a bubble, now there isn't. Since the Obama administration seems incapable of regulating these finance thugs, there will be a bubble again, trust me.
Disasterous healthcare package : depends on the point of view. From my perspective, medical insurance companies have won, so yeah, it's pretty disastrous.
Terrorists on trial in civilian court : you mean, terrorists who will be tried by justice ?! Shocking !
Afghanstan policy : again, don't want to point fingers, but after 8 years of "let's go to Iraq and completely ignore the very serious threats coming from Pakistan", we can't really blame the current administration for this quagmire.
33Your answers sound like excuses and more blame-game, tulipe. CHANGE from Obama simply means spending faster than we can print money, no plans to improve the economy or housing- and his healthcare plan is nothing more than a new welfare program.
34Haven't commented in here in ages...just didn't see the point. This article brings up some very interesting things.
I wonder if your family was a risk...if it was your neighbor, coworker or boss who was spewing alarming threatening extremist views...if you'd be so quick to shrug and think they merely have a right to do so.
Seems to me that is exactly what happened with this dude at Fort Hood. People observed not random acts of anger, but a history of blatant failure to follow military codes of conduct, military policies tossed aside, and an intelligence community who hesitated...hesitated and then people died.
So...I am thinking...until it is your family...someone you personally know...in your neighborhood...and those coffins are very real...perhaps then a conversation about lowering the bar would seem rational.
The bizarre thing is that "this lowering of the bar" is really just raising it to the same level it was 20 years ago when America was a great power, kicked ass and didn't bother with taking names because safety was first.
Yeah...American lives were first. Happened to that? Oh yeah...it is called politically correct allowances for criminal conduct.
I personally cannot see this as a "right" anyone should have above the safety of others. This sort of conduct would not have been tolerated when I was active duty military in 82-86...this guy would have been tossed out on his hiney, dishonorable discharge.
35More Obama-bashing - has nothing to do with the post and is just a bunch of the usual accusations, no substantive points.
36IMO political correctness shouldn't be the enemy here. There is nothing wrong with tempering stereotypes. In regards to this case when you know, not suspect, but know that a military psychiatrist is communicating with none terrorist suspects it is a blatant disregard for intellectual reason to ignore proof and not speak up. PC is not an idea intended to r-e-t-@-r-d common sense. As the evidence shows this would have never been a matter of racial profiling but rather a matter of proof, proof that the irresponsible sat on and did nothing about.
37What actual, court quality evidence has anyone seen?
38Well there's at least one statement on this thread I can totally get behind.
39Also, I still hold it's pretty effing insulting to suggest that PC-ness is really what lead to this disaster. Cos the military totally doesn't have people's best interests at heart and doesn't care if some psycho could potentially harm others. As long as they don't hurt anyone's feelings, right?
"Dave, I'm from a big military family, and have asked several members about the whole PC thing that keeps being brought up. They all have disagreed that "PC" anything played a part in this."
My bf's family is a big military family as well--West Point grad/Lt. Colonel father, cousins, etc. in the army and Marines, and they've said the same thing too, Martini.
40And you know that the things that have come out are not court quality evidence how?
41Has there been a trial yet? (I'm being serious, I just got a new job and can't get to a lot of sites during the day and have beeb living in a cave for about a month now. Didn't think I heard anything about court evidence yet?)
42When people cite the PCness they're not doing it to slag the military, just to show how its a rock and a hard place and even the people who truly DO want to protect others (ie. the military) can't always do so because of the fear of the backlash.
And it's possible that people in the military have more than one opinion, so there is no "well so and so said this and they were in the military so that has to be true". Everyone has a different experience and when it comes to PR things can change pretty fast.
43Here's a great example. I have a friend who works with recruits for a branch in the military. He's a great officer and was very vigilant about making sure everything was done by the book. Now he's involved in an investigation that could result in him being forced out. Why? Because some recruit decided to b*tch to his mom that it was too hard and made up a story of how someone called him a bad name. The mom wrote her congressman. And now there has to be an investigation.
Do you think that congressman is going to be satisfied when it comes out that it was all a lie? Probably not because he wants to look good to their constituents (ie the mom) so this guy (my friend) not only has to go through a BS investigation but possibly lose his career because some kid is too much of a loser to make it through basic.
So quite honestly, I'm kinda sick of hearing about how PC-ness doesn't effect the military because it does.
44when people want a head, they'll get a head no matter what. no matter how much of a lie it is and how wrong it is. because at the end of the day, the military is run by civilians - politicians.
and yet we expect people to speak up with uncomfortable accusations? at what cost? their careers? No thanks. If I was in that position with a family, i'd think twice before i said anything too.
Because we all know here that all Hasan would have had to do is call HuffPo and MSNBC and everyone who accused him would be out on the street in no time.
45I think there's slightly more evidence in this case, though, that something was wrong, and I think it's a bit jumping to conclusion-y to say it's all about being PC. IMO of course. Again, living in a cave and haven't read everything about this case.
"When people cite the PCness they're not doing it to slag the military, just to show how its a rock and a hard place and even the people who truly DO want to protect others (ie. the military) can't always do so because of the fear of the backlash."
I still see it as a slight to the military. I'll definitely agree to disagree though.
46And yeah, I guess that opinion's just formed a bit by my bf's dad agreeing that politics ARE a part of military life (hell he was a friggin' Lt. Colonel so he knows how it can get once you get up in the ranks) but saying that he's super skeptical that it was the big cause behind the rampage and everything else surrounding it.
47Seriously...when I was active duty a coworker was insistent on "saving" everyone he worked with. It didn't matter to him if you told him you were already "saved" or even preferred not to listen to his views...we forged a complaint and he was transferred. Later we learned he continued it at his next assignment and they booted him out.
There has been a huge change in what is permissible then and what is permissible now in the military. The tolerance level has changed. Back in 1983 they gave this very religious bible-thumping dude a second chance and then when he still couldn't follow the rules he was gone.
Now...as evidenced by Hasan's multiple very vocal outbursts such as a powerpoint presentation to his fellow officers that voiced his extremist views, his altercations with coworkers about his views, and ultimately his well documented conversations with clerics and those already connected to 9-11.
One has to ask WHY the military did not act as they have in the past. One has to ask WHY the CIA froze when they saw the evidence but hesitated.
Where did those WHY's come from? What created the WHY...and now...WHY aren't we looking at what they plan to do to prevent that WHY from happening again.
WHY was a Muslim being treated differently than a bible thumping Southern Baptist in our military? That indeed is a powerful "WHY?"
48Haus, as long as there's been a military, there have been guys who b!tch to their moms to get them out. If moms made up some Congressman's entire constituency, I might believe your friend's doomed to be railroaded, but most constituencies include an awful lot of military related voters.
Before one can run around asking why anything about Hasan, one should find out how much of what has been written about him is supported by fact. Before one goes around complaining about special politically correct treatment of Muslims in the military, one should more examples than this case.
If you look at the history of other mass shooters (Columbine and Virginia Tech come quickly to mind), you find that people knew they were off, people knew they were probably dangerous, and people did nothing.
49"If you look at the history of other mass shooters (Columbine and Virginia Tech come quickly to mind), you find that people knew they were off, people knew they were probably dangerous, and people did nothing."
Yeah...and I don't think anyone ever said the people around them were just being too PC by not saying anything.
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.