Hasan's Emails To The Enemy Constitutionally Protected?

Perhaps the Constitution is a suicide pact after all.

Investigators would have been "crucified" over First Amendment rights if they had launched a full-scale probe into e-mails Fort Hood massacre suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly sent to a radical imam, a government investigator told Fox News.

The claim comes as the squabble grows among officials in different branches of law enforcement and the military over who knew what, and when, about Hasan's leanings toward faith-inspired violence, and amid charges that "political correctness" prevented officials from taking pre-emptive action.

The government counterterrorism investigator familiar with the FBI's review of the Fort Hood case told Fox News that they simply did not have enough evidence to launch an investigation. Though officials discovered Hasan's e-mails to the imam, the investigator said the messages suggested he was seeking "spiritual and religious guidance."

"Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified," the investigator said, adding that the communications were shared with the "appropriate chains."

Of course they are right. "Better dead than to offend" after all is practically the motto of the terrorist apologizes on the left and within the government.

Among the many reasons to respect those who serve in the military is that they often suffer restrictions on the rights they fight to preserve for others. The idea that a military officer enjoys a first amendment right to discuss a damn thing with a member of an enemy group is as laughable as it is tragic.

Rest assured however there are still some restrictions in place. I mean, imagine if Nadal were Smith and he were email buddies with the leader of the Aryan Nation or the KKK. How fast would our mythical Maj. (or Pvt.) Smith last in the Army?

Their first amendment rights wouldn't even be consider (and rightly so).

*I just realized I originally referred to the traitor by his first name in the headline. I fixed it.

A Few Politically Correct Men [ace]: I was about to post this.

I was thinking about The System, as I was on about yesterday. And thinking about Code Reds from A Few Good Men.

How stuff like this is dealt with is simple: The policymakers set what they claim is the policy and the rules. But those aren't the real rules; those are the rules they offer to the public. The real rules are kind of secret, in the sense that no one will admit they're official policy, but everyone knows what they are.

In A Few Good Men, the Marine Corps' rules about poor performance were as follows:

1. You cannot transfer or discharge a poor Marine. It is your job to motivate him into being a good Marine.

2. You may use any tools to motivate this poor Marine, but you cannot, under any circumstances, employ troop-administered beatings ("Code Reds").

Now, these rules may come into conflict. What happens when you have a bad Marine and permitted motivation tools aren't working? Does that mean you can violate rule 2?

The official position (in the movie's fictive code) was that no, Rule 2 has primacy. If Rule 1 and Rule 2 come into conflict, Rule 2 wins. Rule 1 gives way; supposedly, in that case, you can transfer or discharge a poor Marine.

But (again, in the fictive universe of the movie), the real rule, which everyone understood was the real rule, and yet none of the brass would admit was the real rule, was that beatings were permitted. Rule 2 was actually a minor rule compared to Rule 1 -- but people would swear up and down on the Bible, under oath in court, that was the other way around.

This situation is very common in organizations. There is a stated, supposedly primary policy. Often that's not the actual policy at all -- but it's in all the handbooks and all the legal-ish CYA type documents.

Looking at the Hasan situation, there were also two rules in conflict:

1. Diversity and tolerance are extremely important, and the Army must try to promote religious minorities such as a Muslim) when it can, and furthermore, must never act in such as way as to make a religious minority (such as a Muslim) feel singled-out and suspected. The FBI, similarly, must not be over-eager to dig into Muslims' exercise of their "first amendment rights."

2. But, regardless of Rule 1, national security and the preservation of life are the two paramount considerations in conducting an investigation into, and disciplining or discharging, a possible traitor or lunatic.

What happens when these rules come into conflict? Again, the supposed rule that takes precedence -- which we'll be hearing all the time in the Congressional hearings -- is that of course, Rule 2 is the more important rule. Nothing, supposedly, is more important than national security and the preservation of troops' lives.

But everyone knew that was not in fact the actual governing, primary rule. Everyone knew that in reality -- in terms of what would lose you a promotion or get you a black mark on your record -- was that Rule 1 -- diversity and tolerance -- was in fact the more important rule, and the brass was willing to risk a fair amount of security in order to maintain Rule 1.

In fact, General Casey even almost admitted this when he said an even greater tragedy than 14 dead Americans would be if diversity suffered.

An even greater tragedy? Really? Greater than 13 dead adults, one dead unborn child, and 40+ badly wounded people, some of whom will be impaired for life?

And so the higher-ups, the policy-makers, get to, as they often do, give conflicting and or dishonest statements of policy while forcing their underlings to carry out the real policy which no one will admit to.

Illegal immigration is a perfect example of this. Supposedly it's illegal to come to America without permission and take a job. This has been the stated policy for decades. The real policy is that it's perfectly acceptable, and the policy-makers enforce this policy not through actually stating that we now have open borders, but by disciplining and/or failing to promote any LEOs or agents who actually attempt to enforce the supposed rule. Look at Sheriff Araphio.

And so it goes on and on, and no one can question the real policy being enforced, because the policy-makers will continue swearing on their mother's eyes that the real policy isn't the policy at all, it's some other, more rational, more popular, less objectionable policy.

The easiest way to defend a deadly-irrational policy is to simply claim it's not the policy at all.

Get ready for this. And don't expect Jack Nicholson to lose it on the stand and finally admit that Rule 2 is for suckers.

posted by DrewM. at 01:39 PM

| Access Comments