Pentagon Reluctant to Brand Hasan Terrorist

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 12, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                      

             Trying 42-year-old Fort Hood mass murderer Nidal Malik Hasan for workplace violence, families of the victims have been denied Purple Hearts and combat-related pay for their injuries.  When Hasan opened fire at a Fort Hood deployment center Nov. 5, 2009 killing 13 and injuring 30, the White House was reluctant to call the incident terrorism, despite mounting evidence that Hasan was converted by U.S.-born radical Islamic cleric and Yemen al-Qaeda chief Anwar al-Awlaki.  Shortly after the incident, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was the first member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to confirm that Hasan was an Islamic terrorist.  Quibbling over whether he had direct orders or was funded by any foreign terror group begs the question of whether or not Hasan was a terrorist.  Shouting “Allahu Akbar” before pulling the trigger, points to terrorism.

             Confessing that he switched sides to defend the Taliban, Hasan admitted that he was on the “wrong side” as part of the U.S. military.  Hasan’s massacre was indeed a case of “workplace violence” but was also terrorism.  Military law expert Scott L. Stillman insists the military has no code for trying Hasan as a “terrorist.”  “They really didn’t have an option,” said Stillman, director emeritus of Durham, N.C.-based Duke University’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.  “He was an active-duty officer:  The crime occurred on a military installation . .  .It was obvious he was going to face a courts-martial,” said Stillman, rejecting the idea that Hasan should be tried in a civil court as a terrorist.  Stillman—a senior military attorney with experience with three major Air Force commands—believes that had the crime occurred off base, the Pentagon might have transferred the case of civilian courts.

             In a widely quoted Pentagon position-paper opposing issuing Purple Hears to victims of workplace violence, the perpetrator “cannot receive a fair trial because a branch of government has indirectly declared that Major Hasan is a terrorist—that he is criminally culpable,” said Stillman, arguing that issuing Purple Hearts would prejudice the case.  Calling that argument “disingenuous,” victims’ attorney Reed Rubinstein believes the government failed to identify Hasan as a terrorist because of the cost associated with military disability and survivor benefits.  He believes the government won’t call Hasan’s mayhem terrorism because of politics.  Admitting that al-Qaeda infiltrated the U.S. military by recruiting and converting an Army psychiatrist is a huge embarrassment to the White House.  Denying victims Purple Hearts and extra disability and survivor benefits is inexcusable.

             Government officials should cal a spade-a-spade and admit that Hasan’s motives were linked to his e-mail relationship to al-Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki, making him, for all-intents-and-purposes, an Islamic terrorist.  Whether or not he was also a garden-variety misanthrope engaging in workplace violence doesn’t erase the fact that he was an Islamic terrorist.  Pentagon officials need to reclassify Hasan as a terrorist not to shift his trial to a civilian court but to give victims and families appropriate recognition.  Had they been killed by terrorists after deployment to the Middle East, the dead or injured soldiers would have received another level of disability and survivor benefits.  Military personnel killed by a confederate terrorist are entitled to any-and-all military benefits, whether or not Hasan is tried for workplace violence.  As the trial proceeds, it’s abundantly clear that al-Awlaki played a big role in the attack.

             Quibbling over whether or not Hasan was a terrorist or simply disgruntled employee doesn’t dignify the dead, injured or their families.  “It’s never been done in a military court before,” said Geoffrey Conn, a professor at South Texas College of Law.  Conn believes branding Hasan as a terrorist would have added too much complexity to an otherwise straightforward case.  Conn minimizes Hasan’s link to al-Awlaki, referring to Hasan as “inspired by al-Qaeda,” not directly connected.  Conn and others that minimize the al-Qaead link don’t like to admit that al-Awlaki presided, while Imam in Church, Virginia, over the funeral of Hasan’s mother in 2001.  Trying Hasan for “workplace violence” prevents the victims from receiving combat-related pay-and-benefits, something victim Shawn Manning estimates at round $2,000 a month in better medical and disability benefits.

             As the evidence mounts in Hasan’s military “workplace violence” trial, it’s time for the government to set the record straight and reclassify Hasan as a terrorist.  Victims and families can’t have it both ways:  Classifying Hasan as a terrorist, and, at the same time, demanding the death penalty.  It’s better for families to receive extra government benefits than see Hasan put down by lethal injection.  If his motives involved combat-related issues, as he’s already stated, then it’s more difficult for prosecutors to seek the death penalty.  Whether or not he planned the massacre in advance, he did so as a soldier fighting what he believed was jihad.  His some 18 e-mails to al-Awlaki all show someone converted into an Islamic radical.  “I can’t wait to join you in the afterlife,” Hasan wrote al-Awlaki in 2008-09.  Studying Hasan over his lifetime is more important than putting him to death.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.