.Politically-correct double standard may have spawned mass murder at Fort Hood by Muslim soldier
A Muslim soldier, Nidal Hasan, shot dead 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood yesterday, shouting the Muslim expression "Allahu Akbar." But in an absurd display of political correctness, media reports barely mentioned the religion angle, choosing instead to highlight the fact that the killer was an "army psychiatrist" or the false claim that he was a veteran with PTSD (which he wasn't: he never even served overseas). Oh, those violent psychiatrists!
Now, we read that he had previously said that Muslims should rise up against the military, "repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers," and engaged in hate-speech against non-Muslims, publicly calling for the beheading or burning of non-Muslims, and talking "about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire." But nothing was done to remove him from a position where he could harm others.
The military is not like the outside world. In the civilian world, hate speech, and often even incitement to commit violence, are protected speech under the First Amendment (under Supreme Court decisions like R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Brandenburg v. Ohio, and Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, and appeals court decisions like Dambrot v. Central Michigan University).
But in the military, soldiers get punished for bigotry all the time -- except for this guy. The courts have held that hate-speech or speech that "discriminatorily harasses" others can generally be criminally punished in the military, unlike in the outside world, and accordingly, white supremacists get disciplined for their views. (So, too, do soldiers who express disloyalty to their country or merely contempt for their Commander in Chief.) But not this soldier, who was more dangerous than your typical white supremacist.
In court cases like Goldman v. Weinberger and Brown v. Glines, the Supreme Court has said that soldiers have less free speech rights, and less freedom of religion, than in the civilian world. The military cites this all the time when it wants to punish soldiers for bigotry, like the soldier who was convicted for uttering a sexist insult about liberal Congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.) in the aftermath of the Tailhook Scandal. (The Air Force Court of Appeals did overturn one military "harassment" regulation as too vague, in an unpublished ruling, but it held that such bigoted speech could be banned under a clearer regulation, and most such regulations have been upheld).
But the military did not apply its standard policy against seditious, bigoted hate-speech to this soldier, perhaps because political correctness exempts Muslims from the rules that members of other religions have to follow, in the eyes of the liberal Obama Administration officials and lawmakers to whom the military is accountable.
Even if his anti-American hate speech had been protected speech in the sense of not being punishable, the speech would still be circumstantial evidence of unfitness for his position working with injured American veterans, warranting his departure from the military for a more appropriate line of work.
Obama could barely bring himself to mention the incident, much less express sympathy for the victims, in his initial remarks today, in which he buried any expression of sympathy in the middle of a speech filled with "wildly disconnected" ramblings about Native Americans. (If he had wanted to talk about Native Americans, he should expressed gratitude for the role Navajo code talkers played in the U.S. victory in the Pacific in World War II).
I am not arguing for a ban on Muslims in the military. The military has a critical shortage of , and need for, translators who speak languages like Pashto (spoken in Afghanistan), Urdu (spoken in Pakistan) and Arabic. These translators are often Muslim, and they should be welcome in the military. But neither should the military exempt Muslims from the rules of conduct imposed on soldiers of other religions. That is an insult to the principle of equality under the law.
Examiner
Because he worked at Walter Reed and the VA is currently above reproach. Might make Government Heath care look bad before the vote.
Now, we read that he had previously said that Muslims should rise up against the military, "repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers," and engaged in hate-speech against non-Muslims, publicly calling for the beheading or burning of non-Muslims, and talking "about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire." But nothing was done to remove him from a position where he could harm others.
The military is not like the outside world. In the civilian world, hate speech, and often even incitement to commit violence, are protected speech under the First Amendment (under Supreme Court decisions like R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Brandenburg v. Ohio, and Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, and appeals court decisions like Dambrot v. Central Michigan University).
But in the military, soldiers get punished for bigotry all the time -- except for this guy. The courts have held that hate-speech or speech that "discriminatorily harasses" others can generally be criminally punished in the military, unlike in the outside world, and accordingly, white supremacists get disciplined for their views. (So, too, do soldiers who express disloyalty to their country or merely contempt for their Commander in Chief.) But not this soldier, who was more dangerous than your typical white supremacist.
In court cases like Goldman v. Weinberger and Brown v. Glines, the Supreme Court has said that soldiers have less free speech rights, and less freedom of religion, than in the civilian world. The military cites this all the time when it wants to punish soldiers for bigotry, like the soldier who was convicted for uttering a sexist insult about liberal Congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.) in the aftermath of the Tailhook Scandal. (The Air Force Court of Appeals did overturn one military "harassment" regulation as too vague, in an unpublished ruling, but it held that such bigoted speech could be banned under a clearer regulation, and most such regulations have been upheld).
But the military did not apply its standard policy against seditious, bigoted hate-speech to this soldier, perhaps because political correctness exempts Muslims from the rules that members of other religions have to follow, in the eyes of the liberal Obama Administration officials and lawmakers to whom the military is accountable.
Even if his anti-American hate speech had been protected speech in the sense of not being punishable, the speech would still be circumstantial evidence of unfitness for his position working with injured American veterans, warranting his departure from the military for a more appropriate line of work.
Obama could barely bring himself to mention the incident, much less express sympathy for the victims, in his initial remarks today, in which he buried any expression of sympathy in the middle of a speech filled with "wildly disconnected" ramblings about Native Americans. (If he had wanted to talk about Native Americans, he should expressed gratitude for the role Navajo code talkers played in the U.S. victory in the Pacific in World War II).
I am not arguing for a ban on Muslims in the military. The military has a critical shortage of , and need for, translators who speak languages like Pashto (spoken in Afghanistan), Urdu (spoken in Pakistan) and Arabic. These translators are often Muslim, and they should be welcome in the military. But neither should the military exempt Muslims from the rules of conduct imposed on soldiers of other religions. That is an insult to the principle of equality under the law.
Examiner
Because he worked at Walter Reed and the VA is currently above reproach. Might make Government Heath care look bad before the vote.
posted by madtom at 3:50 PM
3 Comments:
the day we get rid of muslims all problems will get solved. they are responsible for all the problems of the world. Be it terrorism, population explosion, harassing ladies. this guy should be killed brutally in full public view so that no son of a bitch can again muster courage to do this henious crime
That's idiotic. You think Muslims are the cause of all problems?
If you read the piece, there were Muslims in the audience when this guy was talking about Jihad and one of them spoke up. But he didn't take it beyond that after he was stared down. And neither did the non-Muslims, apparently.
The vast majority of Muslims in America have no interest in following the archaic precepts of the religion. They pick and choose as do most Jews and Christians. What I find most objectionable in Islam is the commandment that all submit and that all true followers must force submission or death on all unbelievers. That's in there, it's unambiguous and some still think it's valid. Most other Muslims will rationalize or deny, but they won't stand up to the fundamentalists. How do you say the founder of your religion was wrong? Islam was a brutal and fascistic bastardization of Christianity and Judaism to unite the warring tribes in Arabia at the time. A lot of it's teachings and values are very much like the other two, even identical, but it's still about force and subjugation.
Perhaps Islam will undergo an 'official' reformation and will drop those parts as no longer applicable to modern life, maybe not. Maybe Islam's war with itself will bring about that change. But denying it plays a major role in conflicts is just as stupid as saying all Muslims are the cause of any problem, much less all problems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8347216.stm
Here's some Islamic justice at work for ya. Perfectly in keeping with the commands as given to the prophet by Allah. On the one hand, at least they recognize the value of innocent life in the womb, but c'mon. I'd give the parents a chance to prove they can't take care of the kid before resorting to stoning them.....and reasonable Muslims everywhere put their fingers in their ears, cover their eyes and chant about how victimized the are by the 'haters'. At least they didn't put panties on his head and take his picture, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home