Someone wrote me this commentary and asked to run it on my blog. He is in the service and asked not to give his name. I think he makes some worthy points that aren’t being discussed.
There’s been a lot of talk about how the government was too quick to dismiss the possibility of terrorism in the shootings here. This debate over whether MAJ Hasan committed an act of terrorism or not misses the point. As Soldiers, when we put on the uniform, we become legitimate targets for our nation’s enemies, and only our nation’s enemies would target us. MAJ Hasan is an American citizen, Soldier and officer. When he armed himself and went to the SRP Center with the intention of targeting American Soldiers, in support of the goals of our enemies, he became an enemy combatant, and as such, he committed an act of treason, not terrorism.
The Constitutional definition of treason is explicit and narrow: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” After months (possibly years) of making written and verbal statements in which he openly sided with those who would seek to overthrow the US Constitution in favor of Sharia law (in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution) he then armed himself and proceeded to kill more American Soldiers in a few minutes than the Taliban has in November. This is obviously treason. For some reason, nobody seems to have realized this. Why is no one using the “T” word?
The failure to recognize treason is disturbing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it means that its opposite, loyalty to the United States, is no longer recognized as a necessary virtue. The left’s fetish for dissent has so distorted the concept that the basic right to disagree with, or oppose a specific policy, party or politician now encompasses the right to reject the very ideals of America, and what had once been understood to be the right to question our leadership, to redress grievances and to debate policies has become equated with the deliberate provision of material support to our enemies.
Maybe Michael Moore’s claim that the insurgents deserved to win wasn’t “adhering to [our] Enemies” (I tend to think that it was, and maybe a lawyer could set me straight on why it wasn’t), but certainly giving them money (as Code Pink has done with Iraqi insurgents) and putting yourself in harm’s way to protect them (as did the “human shields” who went to Iraq before the invasion) must be, but for some reason, this is not said. Maybe repeating Al Qaeda propaganda as facts, or giving away critical operational information about how we track terrorist finances or exposing weaknesses in our body armor is protected speech (or at least the NY Times can plausibly make the claim that it is), but when MAJ Hasan turned his guns on his fellow Soldiers out of the conviction that he was on the wrong side of the War on Terror, he made it clear that he was “levying War against [us].” Why do we no longer say this?
This, BTW, goes farther than just MAJ Hasan. The FT Dix plotters were American citizens, as was the shooter at the Little Rock recruiting station a few months ago. In each case, these men internalized the goals of the global jihad without ever setting foot in an Al Qaeda training camp and acted on those goals. They represent the beginnings of our own Islamic insurgency, an insurgency that demands not just the withdrawal of American troops from the Middle East, not even the withdrawal of America from the rest of the world, but the submission of America to Islam and the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States in favor of Sharia law. This is treason, not terrorism. Somebody has to say it.
I think it should be added that the president’s actions after the shooting were disgraceful. Though not surprising.