It's one thing to avoid the "terrorist" label when reporting on Ft. Hood suspect Major Nidal Hasan. It's quite another to say that those who do use it are making a political calculation to "paint the Democrats as soft terror." Yet that's what MSNBC's Rachel Maddow insisted on her Nov. 11 broadcast.
Maddow launched into a minute-and-a-half soliloquy on why it is bad for the Democratic Party when commentators label Hasan a "terrorist." She even attempted to make the case on Hasan's behalf against a terrorism label. Who needs a legal team when you have friends like Maddow and Chris Matthews, who fretted over the legality of Hasan's al Qaeda communications?
"Remember this one? Yes, it is the old ‘paint the Democrats as soft on terror' routine," Maddow said. "But in order to play that politicizing terrorism, anti-Democratic greatest hits, the Fort Hood case has to be terrorism. Now, regardless of how you feel about the political issue of politicizing terrorism, it's worth asking was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It's not just a political question. It's not just a judgment call. It's not just a matter of taste. It's a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer."
Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and, according to Maddow, because those charges don't indicate terrorism, the terrorism characterization should be avoided.
"And the charges today didn't include anything related to terrorism," Maddow said. "Terrorism is not just conceptual political jargon. It's a legal term and it has interestingly changed over the past few years. In order for something to be legally considered terrorism, do you have to be taking instructions from a terrorist group? Do you have to have some sort of clear political motive behind the violence? Is it about the way that you commit the crime, what sort of weapons that you use in doing? Is it about how many people that you kill in your crime? Is it about the specific type of people you target, whether they're civilian or military?"
However, as Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Command, explained, these charges are not set in stone and could change, which could altogether ruin Maddow's argument against branding Hasan a terrorist. But that wasn't stopping Maddow from sanctimoniously contending that using the word terrorism is nothing more than a strategic political maneuver and that it is an indictment of those making them, not the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding 29.
"If you're interested in more than just making political hay out of the Fort Hood case, these are the sort of legitimate questions you would want to ask before labeling this or any case an instance of terrorism," Maddow said. "Those who are calling this terrorism or making their case in large part because Maj. Hasan is a Muslim and because he's alleged to have said ‘God is great' before the shootings. And while it might make for exciting politics to argue murders by committed religious Muslims are presumptively terrorist acts, those exciting political allegations actually say a lot more about the people making them than they do about the real character of the tragedy at Fort Hood and how we, as a country, should respond to it."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
To Ms. Maddow:
November 13, 2009 - 12:16 ET by Quasi-socialistDu-uh!
However, I find the label "terrorism" mis-applied to the Hassan case. It has elements of "going postal" and we do not consider that "terrorism". Also, if we engaged in a stand up fight with Al Queda in Iraq, the people on the other end have similar motives as the 9/11 crew and Hasan, but we don't call a standup firefight "terrorism". So it's not the motivation that makes things "terrorism", which is what is argued in the case of Hassan.
1) The guy flipped out, and 2) jihadism had something to do with it, and 3) and he was uncomfortably receptive to jihadist or Wahibbist ideas.
Jihadism had EVERYTHING to do with it
November 13, 2009 - 13:09 ET by SickofLibsOr should we start describing the daily terrorist attacks around the world as flipped out guys "going postal"?
Way to read.
November 13, 2009 - 15:25 ET by Quasi-socialistWay to read.
This isn't a case of him
November 13, 2009 - 13:10 ET by RowaneThis isn't a case of him just flipping out, he had been planning a JIHADDI attack for some time. When one just "flips out" chances are they won't be dressed in moslem garb and be armed with 2 pistols. This was a premeditated murderous, terrorist attack and those to stupid to see this only serve to enable it.
"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you
know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would
necessarily skyrocket" - Barack Hussain Obama
I agree; the guy did NOT
November 13, 2009 - 13:28 ET by motherbeltI agree; the guy did NOT flip out!
This was a well-planned attack. It's not like he just snapped and started shooting; mainly because he should not have been carrying a gun on the base, per regulations.
He made a choice to get guns, go where he did, and shout "Allahu Akbar!" before he opened fire.
He knew exactly what he was doing. And why.
A terrorist act is meant to inspire terror in the populace. He did that.
So he put some planning
November 13, 2009 - 15:34 ET by Quasi-socialistSo he put some planning into it. Columbine and Cho's attack and Virginia Tech had planning too. I bet most cases of someone going postal show signs of planning. We don't call them terrorism, simply because they are disatisfied with their lot in life.
Would he have ever done this unless he was about to be deployed to possibly "die fighting other Muslims" which put him by his own understanding in threat of going to hell? Possibly, but possibly not. He doesn't show a whole lot of planning in this other than knowing that firearms will be locked up in the armory, and that he can probably kill a lot of soldiers before he is killed.
Saying he shows "planning" is like the fawning press saying that Obama shows intellect. Not that much.
In contrast, how long was 9/11 planned? How much planning did siezing the USS Cole take? These are real plans not. I go to work, I shoot people before they can get guns out of the armory or police arrive.
The evidence of disgruntledness and even being derranged are here. And it has a lot to do with being a muslim (afraid of Muslim damnation rules), but the other elements just aren't there.
It is terrorism
November 13, 2009 - 14:55 ET by ahusserbut not a military operation type of terrorism (organised?). It is a solo freelance version of terrorism. The DC Snipers, LAX airport shooting, (I think) the shoe bomber was a solo attempt, and others come to mind. It is jihadism and moslem religion based.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Well, I guess if something
November 13, 2009 - 12:15 ET by AlanaWell, I guess if something might possibly paint Democrats in a bad light, well, then, we mustn't call it what it is.
Reality is less important than something that might possibly paint Democrats in a bad light.
Yeah, that works for me. From now on, everything that happens will be considered first in regards to what it might make Democrats look like, and we will refer to it as something - anything - that could not possibly make Democrats look bad.
Doesn't matter what it IS, what matters is that we make the world look good for Democrats. Yeah, that's the ticket.
The democrat leadership
November 13, 2009 - 12:15 ET by MikeBThe democrat leadership soft on terror? Naaaaah! Well, knock me down with a feather!
We ain't paintin' nothin', Rachel. They are soft on terror.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Their battle cry is:
November 13, 2009 - 14:56 ET by ahusser"Runaway, Runaway"
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Typo or Freudian Slip?
November 13, 2009 - 12:18 ET by Anneke9... making a political calculation to "paint the Democrats as soft terror."
Democrats as soft terror... quite appropriate.
Camouflage conservative in Baghdad-by-the-Bay
Call it what you may Maddow..
November 13, 2009 - 12:26 ET by holeinthehullHoleinthehull
Why don't we put lipstick on terrorism and call it a dancing pig who is mad about being called "porky." The liberals have a track record when it comes to handling terrorism. Bill Clinton had multiple chances during his administration to take down Obama and he was afraid of breaking some windows out in a Mosque or something ridiculous, but had no problem blowing up a pill factory with the night watchmen sleeping at the front gate.
Rachel, you precious
November 13, 2009 - 12:28 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonRachel, you precious little darlin' you.
IF the democrats were NOT soft on terrorism, this would be a non-issue.
There's a lot to be said for "AMERICAN FIRST, everything else subservient to the AMERICAN FIRST thingie"
http://gjresult.com
Lawyers controlling our language
November 13, 2009 - 12:31 ET by KC MulvilleCheck out the assumptions here!
"It's worth asking was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It's not just a political question. It's not just a judgment call. It's not just a matter of taste. It's a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer. And the charges today didn't include anything related to terrorism," Maddow said. "Terrorism is not just conceptual political jargon. It's a legal term and it has interestingly changed over the past few years."
So, because the prosecutors made a legal decision to bring charges that don't mention terrorism ... we're not allowed to call Hasan a terrorist? We're not allowed to use certain language because ... lawyers didn't use it?
How much mind control do they really want??
um, complete?
November 13, 2009 - 12:44 ET by michiganruthI'd say yeah, complete mind control is what they're after. "1984" is their playbook. remember, "Bruno" Napolitano had no problem calling us right-wing teabaggers "terrorists." but for some reason, a Muslim who shouts Allah Akbar before murdering 13 soldiers is not a terrorist. go figure.
Whether "Terrorist" Applies
November 13, 2009 - 12:45 ET by Ernie in UtahThis is clearly a semantics issue. I usually avoid these arguments, but in this case:
Last spring, didn't Janet Napolitano try to label certain conservatives as potential terrorists? Someone might want to go back and look at Janet's words.
If a conservative with a gun is a potential terrorist, then this guy would definitely qualify under Janet's definition (with all due apologies to Rachel).
Ernie in Utah
Just saying
November 13, 2009 - 14:30 ET by Kekela WardSpeaking of semantics, I read a definition of terrorism that stated a terrorist attack had to be committed again a civilian target, which Hood was not. The correct crime would be Treason, as Hasan was a military person attacking his own military. The bright side of a charge of treason is that the military would take jurisdiction, and would avoid the possiblity of a Holder led DOJ clusterf***, as we are about to see in NYC.
Sam: "I hurt somebody's feelings once"
Pukes
November 13, 2009 - 12:47 ET by wolfemanicThese cowardly liberals are literally dancing past the grave yard.
Today we hear the 9/11 suspects are going to NY for their civilian trials.
Those 9/11 trials are going to be about one thing "torture", not ours, but theirs. They gave forced confessions bla bla bla.
Apparently a couple of muzzies choked on some water, some may have had smoke blown in their face, some made to wear underwear on their heads. Can you just imagine the horror?
I was listening to NPR on
November 13, 2009 - 15:26 ET by Dan The Man 2I was listening to NPR on the way into work this morning and they were discussing the trials of Gitmo detainees. They discussed the enhanced interrogation but called it torture, they did not mince words. I guess a tiger cant change its stripes. We can expect the trials to be about GWB and torture, not about what the terrorists did, especially in the middle of NYC.
Bring out the clowns.
Does anyone actually watch
November 13, 2009 - 12:46 ET by bse5150Does anyone actually watch this gaffe-prone dingbat? If Palin or Bush had made the 'preamble' gaffe that she did the other day...
If it's already pink, you
November 13, 2009 - 12:47 ET by mattmIf it's already pink, you don't have to paint it pink.
What a total idiot Madcow is
November 13, 2009 - 13:01 ET by OxyConShe basically just revealed the reason why the Lamestream media was loathe to call Hasan's murderous rampage "terrorism" (even though it already was obvious to a few of us what they were up to).
They knew it would put Obama and the Liberals at a disadvantage, so they immediately set about finding any meme that might stick, other then the truth, which is that this was an act of jihadist terrorism.
Madcow just proved that she has no problem at all with engaging in intellectual dishonesty and using propagandist techniques on her clueless audience.
News Flash
November 13, 2009 - 13:10 ET by justbob223News flash to Rachel: The Democrats are soft on terror.
The far left isn't soft on terror, they have taken its side.
November 13, 2009 - 13:16 ET by R D Helm-Dave
Our elected representatives have failed us.
Hate crimes
November 13, 2009 - 13:22 ET by ThisnThatSo, Maddow says not to lable something terrorism just because Hasen belongs to a "group [muslim in this case]" and commits a crime. Not fair, she says. Never should do that, she adds. Bad, bad.
So, what's her take on "hate crimes"? Is she saying we shouldn't declare something a hate crime just because the crime is against a "group [like queers, ethnicity, etc]"? Not fair? Never should do that? Bad, bad?
Or is she just, once again, re-defining the whole conversation "on-the-spot", on a whim, just like liberals do every day of their lives -- and then expects us to fall in line, just because "she says so"?
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
True dat!
November 13, 2009 - 14:25 ET by OxyConIf Madcow traveled to Iran dressed in her Isaac Chroner best and walked down the street holding hands with her girlfriend, she would be hung by a group of people who feel it is their religious duty to kill all homosexuals. Here, in an advanced society, we call that a hate crime. Yet who is it that Madcow sympathizes with? "We must not call them terrorists!"
The logic of 'Star Trek'
November 13, 2009 - 15:09 ET by SlyrrIn the original series episode, 'What little girls are made of', there was a line delivered by Kirk (Shatner) which seems to encapsulate liberal philosophy and it's fallacy.
'You can't protect someone who's trying to destroy you!'
All this liberal hand-wringing over terrorists, trying to 'understand' them when they're doing everything in their power to wipe us out - I've never understood it.
Nor can I understand why the people tolerate so much of it when we know what it will lead to.
I can guarantee - if it comes to a question of survival - if it comes to a point where attacks are happening in larger and larger scale, the people will do everything in their power to survive. Liberals may feel so guilty about humanity's existence that they want to wipe themselves out, but most folks do NOT feel that way.
Just like with enviro-wackos. They can propose all the 'population control', all the taxes, all the 'carbon offsets' and all the legislation they want.
But all it will take is a bad year or two and the instinct for survival will wipe it all out. I guarantee - if it comes to a question of feeding our families - if it comes to a question of putting up with Al Gore's madness or letting your family freeze during winter - the people will chop down every tree they can find, they'll burn coal, they'll clear-cut for farmland, they'll do whatever it takes to stay alive - and Al Gore be damned.
They're coming closer and closer to forcing the people to choose between staying alive - or following liberal madmen off a screaming cliff into oblivion.
To be a terrorist or not
November 13, 2009 - 16:05 ET by KansasgirlHer thought process is stupid.
"And while it might make
November 13, 2009 - 17:28 ET by ProudAmerican58"And while it might make for exciting politics to argue murders by committed religious Muslims are presumptively terrorist acts, those exciting political allegations actually say a lot more about the people making them than they do about the real character of the tragedy at Fort Hood..."
It sure does, Rachel. It says we recognize evil when we see it.
PS: Making that stupid mocking and condenscending hand gesture while quoting accurate descriptions of leftist thought, such as "Democrats are soft on terror," doesn't make it any less true.
Duh!!!!!
November 13, 2009 - 18:01 ET by DoktorFrankenWay to hit that nail, Rach.
Sarah Palin: The Most Dangerous Conservative In America
But Jonathan Turley said>>>
November 13, 2009 - 18:27 ET by tim413Before I get to Turley: I have said this before but it bears repeating. Rachel is supposed to be so smart but she so often reaches the most naive conclusions.
Turley was her next guest and she set him up with a softball question re how this could not possibly be terrorism since the Army did not charge Hasan with terrorism. And, shock of shocks, Turley did not agree with her! The so-called constitutional law "expert" said he was also a UCMJ expert and the Military Code does not define terrorism as a crime when it comes to members of the military. I'm certain she will forget about that and blythely continue attempting to make her case that is was not terrorism.
Stop federal judges from foisting their notions of "fairness" on the States. Amend the 14th Amendment! - tim413
Hasan is a terrorist, and the Democrats should be painted...
November 13, 2009 - 18:43 ET by ThalpyHasan is a terrorist, and the Democrats should be painted as soft on terror, because they are.
Thalpy... Nothing like
November 13, 2009 - 18:58 ET by bigtimerThalpy...
Nothing like the enemy within hard at work, 24/7.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Soft on terror, hard on
November 13, 2009 - 19:57 ET by RR GOPSoft on terror, hard on average Americans and Israelis.
Seems they've been getting away with it pretty well so far. By the time things come to a head, they'll whip out the can of whoop-a$$ they've been putting together in the background and ask, "Anybody else got a problem with that?"
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Have you paid your taxes...
November 14, 2009 - 00:57 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonHave you paid your taxes... excuse me, tithes to the chosen one yet?
They are watching you.... you do realize that don't you?
"no matter how low you set the bar, liberals can never quite measure up." -Me
http://gjresult.com
How can the dems be soft on
November 13, 2009 - 23:29 ET by toneyukiHow can the dems be soft on terror when they don't beleive that it exists?
Are they soft on freedom fighters?
I found a new way to punish my children, they have to look at her picture for 28 seconds!
I left the Republican party because the Republic party went to the LEFT of me.