Cornyn to FBI Director: Make Fort Hood Report Public

Cornyn to FBI Director: Make Fort Hood Report Public Upon reports that the independent review of the FBI’s actions in the Fort Hood shooting are going to be delivered to the bureau today, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has asked FBI Director Robert Mueller to make that report available to the public as well.

The review team, led by Judge William Webster, is expected to submit a 150-page report, containing findings and 18 formal recommendations for necessary reforms in a range of areas within the FBI.

“This report is a matter of tremendous public importance, and I call on you to release an unclassified version of it as soon as possible. In doing so, I urge you to personally ensure that the contents of the report are not unnecessarily classified to shield their public release, because such action would come directly at the expense of transparency and accountability,” Cornyn wrote Mueller.

“The key findings and recommendations of this report must be made public, so we can glean any and all lessons from this incident,” he added. “The American people and specifically the Fort Hood community in Texas have the right to know.”

Thirteen were killed and 29 wounded on Nov. 5, 2009, when Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, reportedly opened fire at the base. Hasan, an Islamic extremist, could receive the death penalty; his trial is scheduled to begin Aug. 20.

“Our government failed the brave Americans who were killed and wounded at Fort Hood that day,” Cornyn wrote. “The devastation inflicted on them was preventable, and we must make it a high priority to ascertain exactly where the system broke down and ensure it does not happen again.”

“Our government failed the brave Americans who were killed and wounded at Fort Hood that day,” Cornyn wrote. “...we must make it a high priority to ascertain exactly where the system broke down and ensure it does not happen again.”

ARMY CHIEF-OF-STAFF: “LOSS OF DIVERSITY AT FORT HOOD WOULD BE GREATER TRAGEDY THAN LOSS OF LIFE”
Defends Muslims Madness
Posted by thelastcrusade - November 11th, 2009

General George Casey, the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Army, said that the deaths of 12 soldiers and one civilian at Foot Hood would become a far greater tragedy “if our diversity becomes a casualty.”

Appearing on “Meet the Press,” Major Casey warned the media that “it is way too soon to draw conclusions” concerning the motive of Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

He upheld the strategy of keeping Muslims – - even radical Muslims – - in key military positions by saying: “Our diversity is our strength.”

“We have to be broad enough to bring in people from all walks of life,” the General said.

The Army’s Chief-of-Staff asserted: As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

General Casey further said that the army hadn’t “missed anything” in regard to the in-your-face warning signs exhibited by Major Hasan that he was a fanatical Muslim jihadist and an imminent threat to massacre U.S. troops.

MAJOR NIDAL HASAN HAD AN ENABLER
All those red flags but no one did anything. Political correctness took the lives of 14 people.
by Mark Steyn on Thursday, November 26, 2009

Ever since this magazine attracted the attention of Canada’s “human rights” regime, defenders of the system have clung to a familiar argument. In a letter to Maclean’s, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Canada’s chief censor, put it this way:

“Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred.”

“Hateful words” can lead to “unspeakable crimes.” The problem with this line is that it’s ahistorical twaddle, as I’ve pointed out. Yet still it comes up. It did last month, during my testimony to the House of Commons justice committee, when an opposition MP mused on whether it wouldn’t have been better to prohibit the publication of Mein Kampf.

“That analysis sounds as if it ought to be right,” I replied. “But the problem with it is that the Weimar Republic—Germany for the 12 years before the Nazi party came to power—had its own version of Section 13 and equivalent laws. It was very much a kind of proto-Canada in its hate speech laws. The Nazi party had 200 prosecutions brought against it for anti-Semitic speech. At one point the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Hitler from giving public speeches.”

And a fat lot of good it all did.

But still the old refrain echoes through the corridors of power: vigorous honest free speech will lead to mass murder unless we subject it to “reasonable limits.”

Actually, the opposite is true: a constrained and regulated culture policed by politically correct enforcers leads to slaughter. I’m not being speculative here, as Commissar Lynch is about my murderous prose style. It’s already happened, just a couple of weeks back. Thirteen men and women plus an unborn baby were gunned down at Fort Hood by a major in the U.S. Army. Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. In the days that followed, the near parodically absurd revelations piled up like an overripe satire, but a two-panel cartoon at the Toronto blogger Scaramouche’s website provided the pithiest distillation: “This is your brain. This is your brain on political correctness”—a small and shrivelled thing.

Major Hasan couldn’t have been more straightforward about who and what he was. An army psychiatrist, he put “SoA”—i.e., “Soldier of Allah”—on his business card. At the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, he was reprimanded for trying to persuade patients to convert to Islam and fellow pupils objected to his constant “anti-American propaganda,” but, as the Associated Press reported, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”

This is your brain on political correctness.

As the writer Barry Rubin pointed out, Major Hasan was the first mass murderer in U.S. history to give a PowerPoint presentation outlining the rationale for the crime he was about to commit. And he gave the presentation to a roomful of fellow army psychiatrists and doctors. Some of whom glanced queasily at their colleagues, but none of whom actually spoke up. And, when the question of whether then-Captain Hasan was, in fact, “psychotic,” the policy committee at Walter Reed Army Medical Center worried “how would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents.”

This is your brain on political correctness.

 So instead he got promoted to major and shipped to Fort Hood. And barely had he got to Texas when he started making idle chit-chat praising the jihadist murderer of two soldiers outside a recruitment centre in Little Rock. “This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,” Major Hasan told his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee. “People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.”

In less enlightened times, Colonel Lee would have concluded that, being in favour of the murder of his comrades, Major Hasan was objectively on the side of the enemy. But instead he merely cautioned the major against saying things that might give people the wrong impression. Which is to say, the right impression.

 This is your brain on political correctness.

“You need to lock it up, major,” advised the colonel.

But, of course, he didn’t. He could pretty much say what he wanted—infidels should have their throats cut, for example. Meanwhile, the only ones who felt any “need to lock it up” were his fellow psychiatrists, his patients, his teachers at the Uniformed Services University, officials at Walter Reed, and the brass at Fort Hood. So they locked it up for years, and now 14 people are dead.

And even when the slaughter had happened, much of the media found it easier to slander both the U.S. military and the general populace than to confront the evidence. The Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano professed to be most worried about an “anti-Muslim backlash” from the knuckledragging bozo citizenry she has the forlorn task of attempting to hold in check. This is the Jennifer Lynch argument: the priority is always some hypothetical atrocity waiting to happen, no matter how many times we ace that test: there was no “anti-Muslim backlash” after 3,000 corpses on Sept. 11, or after Bali, Madrid or London. Muslims have certainly been murdered in New York and London but by their co-religionists on 9/11 and 7/7 rather than by any “Islamophobes.”

As for the military, well, obviously, they’re a bunch of Bush-scarred psychos who could snap at any moment. Newsweek called the mass murder “A Symptom of a Military on the Brink”: “A psychiatrist who was set to deploy to Iraq at the end of the month, Hasan reportedly opened fire around the Fort Hood Readiness Center,” wrote Andrew Bast. “It comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers individually that it makes it increasingly difficult for the military as a whole to deploy for wars abroad.” No mention of the words “Islam” or “Muslim,” but Mr. Bast was concerned to “get at the root causes of soldier stresses.” As in post-traumatic stress disorder. Operative word “post”: you get it after you’ve been in combat. Major Hasan had never been in combat.

Until Nov. 5, PTSD was something you got when you returned from battle overseas and manifested itself in sleeplessness, nightmares, or, in extreme circumstances, suicide. After Nov. 5, PTSD was apparently spread by shaking hands and manifested itself in gunning down large numbers of people while yelling “Allahu akbar!”

 This is your brain on political correctness.

Major Hasan sent fortnightly emails to Anwar al-Awlaki, sometime spiritual adviser to both the Fort Hood shooter and three of the 9/11 terrorists and an imam so radical he’s banned from Britain, a land with an otherwise all but boundless tolerance for radical imams. In his leisure hours, he adopted the Pushtun dress of those Arabs who journeyed to Afghanistan to sign up with Osama. And eventually the sheer accumulation of such revelations rendered the PTSD thesis so absurd that even Frank Rich of the New York Times was willing to muse tentatively on whether the major’s years of jihadist exhibitionism were “ignored because of political correctness, bureaucratic dysfunction, sheer incompetence or some hybrid thereof.” My italics, but I’m impressed it made the list.

Oh, well. If U.S. military personnel make insufficiently appealing victims, consider the three sisters and an “aunt” drowned in their car in the Rideau Canal in Kingston in what a remarkably uncurious media reported as a midnight driving lesson gone wrong. And even when their parents were arrested, there was little appetite to discuss “honour killing.” When 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was strangled, allegedly by her father with her brother’s help, for refusing to wear a hijab, Citytv ran a lunchtime call-in poll:

“Do you think society discriminates against women who wear a hijab?”

This is your brain on political correctness: dead. But not as dead as poor Aqsa Parvez and the ever swelling ranks of Western “honour killing” victims.

Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (with its Potemkin membership but lots of foreign funding) want a world where Islam is beyond discussion—where “red flags” are ignored because to do anything about them would risk career-ruining accusations of “Islamophobia,” or six months of “sensitivity training,” or a complaint to the “human rights” commission where Jennifer Lynch’s enforcers will spay you into a docile eunuch of the PC state. Pace Commissar Lynch, words “should be given free rein,” because they are the first and least worst line of defence in a free society.

Instead, asked “Who ya gonna believe—The Celebrate Diversity Handbook or your lyin’ eyes?”, more and more of us plump for the former, if only for a quiet life. Commissar Lynch has it exactly backwards: it’s the craven submission to political correctness, the willingness to leave your marbles with the Diversity Café hat-check girl, that leads to death—real death, with real corpses, from Texas to Ontario. And when the guy’s on the table firing wildly and screaming “Allahu akbar!”, the PC enforcers won’t be there for you.

WARNING: OUR MILITARY NO LONGER
SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ
OR DEFENDS OUR CONSTITUTION
AS IT IS NOW SUBSERVIENT
TO THE DICTATES OF SHARIA,
thanks to B. Hussein Obama!”

But, but, CERTAINLY all this talk about Dear Leader, Islam, Sharia, is nuttin’ but “Scare Mongering” as this is the United States of America; we are a “Representative Republic” and our “Laws” and “Constitution” trumps all and this could NEVER happen here, right?
RIGHT???
Well, someone want to explain if this is NOT so, what exactly is the meaning of this new “Policy/Directive”—WHICH CAME AT THE DIRECTION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE--as a result of the “INADVERTENT” burning of some Qur’ans?

And this is the “results:”

SEE: Punishment Recommended For Troops Who Burned Koran

Six U.S. soldiers and one sailor are facing disciplinary action for their role in accidentally burning Korans at a military base - an event that sparked violent protests in Afghanistan.

The Washington Post reports military investigators have recommended administrative discipline for the seven troops. No criminal charges will be filed.

It's now up to Army and Navy officials to decide whether or not to punish the Koran-burning service members.

Ok: I challenge anyone to find ANYWHERE in the United States Code or the Uniform Code of Military Justice whereby it is an “OFFENSE” to burn/destroy/damage a “Qur’an?”

Conclusion: Our Fascist Dear Leader (aided and abetted by a bunch of wuss, REMF, Armchair, Asshat, JCS at the Pentagon) have (via a DIKTAT) ordered “SHARIA” to trump our Laws/Constitution and I challenge anyone to dispute this assertion!

This is all part and parcel with “Creeping Sharia” (Incrementalism) as well as “Civilization/Stealth Jihad” being implemented under out noses (and NOT even, so subtly) and anyone who doubts or denies this, needs to take their blinders off.

What’s next?

Will there be stoning of adulteresses, amputations of the hands of thieves, and beheading of apostates from Islam and blasphemers of Muhammad on the Mall?

If you think these are absurd questions, consider that these are all elements of the same Islamic law that Obama has now vowed to enforce in regard to the burning of the Qur’an.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Clinton has held a closed-door meeting with the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in order to discuss strategies for enforcing Sharia restrictions on free speech regarding Islam in Western countries.

Obama’s Justice Department has gone to court more than once to compel American businesses and educational institutions to change the way they operate in order to accommodate particularities of Islamic law and practice. ..

….Moreover, both the FBI and DOD have “invited” several Muslims--who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood—to “scrutinize” our Training Material and as a result of their “recommendations” have “scrubbed” ALL reference to “Radical Muslims,” “Jihad,” “Islamic Terrorists” etc., or ANYTHING else which in any way, might “OFFEND” the practitioners of the “Religion of Pieces.”

IF BURNING THE QUR’AN IS NOW [AN] OFFENSE/CRIME FOR OUR MILITARY AND IS THUS NOW SUBJECT TO ISLAMIC LAW, HOW MUCH SHARIA ARE THE REST OF US SOON TO COME UNDER?

TO WHAT EXTENT HAS HE CAPITULATED ("SUBMITTED")?

AND, WHERE DOES OBAMA DRAW THE LINE, IF ANYWHERE?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.