The problem with hate crime legislation is that it creates special classes of minorities who receive greater protection from harassment via harsher penalties for their would-be assailants. One upshot of this approach is that groups perceived as chronically threatened because of their identity are given greater benefit of the doubt in bias-motivated crimes they commit against other groups.
If there were ever a group that U.S. law should consider shielding through hate crime legislation, it is: Americans. The U.S. should be uniquely interested in protecting its citizens against attacks for being residents of this country, in the same way it protects its citizens against foreign attacks and its soldiers against enemies on the battleground.
If there were ever a setting in which pro-American hate crime protections should be enforced, it is in the military. American soldiers, more than any other group, actively display dedication to pro-American ideals.
If there were ever a cultural group in modern times that has demonstrated persistent, widespread hostility toward and willingness to engage in violent attacks against Americans, especially Americans in the military, it is radical Islamists.
Naturally, army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, who adhered to extremist Islamist ideology, sought connections with Al Qaeda, and shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he massacred 13 soldiers and wounded dozens at Fort Hood last week, is being portrayed by the mainstream media and the present administration as a guy who needs OSHA counseling.
Muslim apologists have been telling us to not jump to conclusions (except that the killings were caused by stress), that the murders weren’t related to Islam, that it’s “speculation” that the military ignored warning signs regarding Hasan. We get clueless gems like this from the New York Times on Monday: “It is unclear what might have motivated Major Hasan.” Wusses like Lindsey Graham don’t help by claiming that the murders were “not about his religion—the fact that this man was a Muslim.” (Wait—isn’t that a conclusion?) It takes a hawk like Joe Lieberman to initiate hearings into Hasan’s conduct and the military’s failure to eject him for anti-American actions in which he engaged for years.
In the interest of preventing future attacks, I propose that we learn from the following warning signs:
• Hasan identified as an Islamic fundamentalist, advocated for Muslims to “rise up and attack Americans” in retaliation for war against Muslims abroad, and espoused anti-Semitic views.
• Hasan rejoiced over the murder of an army recruiter in Arkansas in June by an American convert to Islam. According to Colonel Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at Fort Hood, after the attack Hasan helpfully suggested, “Maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.”
• In 2003 Sergeant Hasan Karim Akbar—another American convert—slaughtered two U.S. soldiers and wounded 14 more in a grenade and rifle attack on a base in Kuwait in retaliation for the war in Iraq. (I wonder how Hasan felt about that?)
• Classmates in Hasan’s master’s program complained of his anti-American views and his insistence that Sharia outweighs U.S. constitutional law.
• Fellow psychiatrists reported that, at a Grand Rounds talk during his residency, Hasan lectured his audience on Koranic justice, including the proscription to behead nonbelievers and/or pour hot oil down their throats and set them on fire. Hasan defended suicide bombers, a position he has taken in postings on jihad-themed websites.
• Hassan called the war on terror a war on Islam and said that military service for the U.S. is incompatible with Muslim beliefs. (He may be on to something! About 0.6% of the country identifies as Muslim, compared to only 0.25% of the military.) Hasan argued that Muslim soldiers should be exempted from combat due to their status as conscientious objectors.
• At Fort Hood, Hasan received warnings from supervisors for attempting to convert his patients to Islam, though he maintains it was entirely their choice whether to receive castor oil or hot oil for their remedies.
• The FBI had been investigating Hasan since 2008 and was aware he had sent dozens of e-mails to Al Qaeda spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan and his family attended the mosque in Falls Church, Virginia where al-Awlaki served as imam in the months leading up to September 11 and two of the 9/11 hijackers worshiped.
Even if Hasan’s admonitions to slaughter infidels were not evidence enough to convict him of some kind of crime, he should have been ruled unfit for his position by military officials.
Hate crime legislation has been justified as necessary due to specious defenses offered for crimes against minority groups, such as the claim by lawyers for Harvey Milk’s assassin that junk food contributed to his inability to control his actions, or the “homosexual panic defense” that some who feel threatened by advances from a gay person enter a state of irrationality that prompts them to murderously strike out. Hate crime laws have also been offered to cover minority groups whom police might not adequately protect due to racial bias. The solution to specious legal defenses and lapses in police enforcement is to treat members of all groups equally, not some better than others.
As a consequence of this inverted mentality, we are warned by our political leaders to ignore the cause of obviously jihad-motivated killing of U.S. soldiers and swallow spurious explanations for the massacre such as stress over anticipated deployment in Afghanistan or the inability of a trained psychiatrist to listen to stories from combat veterans.
The latest enlightened word, from Fort Hood base commander Lieutenant General Robert Cone, regarding the military’s plan to prevent future violence: “What we’re looking for is people with personal problems, not at all related to their religion—not at all.”
I hear the sugar rush from the Halloween candy civilians sent soldiers in care packages can lead them to do some crazy things.
