Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan exchanged e-mails with 9/11 al-Qaeda terrorist imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen in Yemen. That sounds damning to me, but a terrorism expert cautioned that the exchanges may have been part of Hasan's academic research.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, thinks this information is significant. So do I. But according to Chris Matthews it's not a crime to contact al-Qaeda, is it???
"It obviously suggests that Dr. Hasan was reaching out either for personal or
academic reasons, given the nature of his thesis and the work he was preparing to do as a researcher," added the expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. (Washington Post)
Thesis? What thesis? The man is a doctor, a psychiatrist. Just what academic research calls for one to contact a terror-related imam in Yemen? None that I know. If you know something about this, please let me know.
Earlier this year, Adam Gadahn, who explicitly encouraged those with burning grievances against U.S. military actions in Iraq "to go on a shooting spree at the Marines' housing facilities at Camp Pendleton." I suppose he is proud of Hasan's attack at Fort Hood.
Don't worry about Hasan, because he is awake and talking now and his family has hired an attorney who will surely tell him not to say a word. From the Washington Post:
On Monday, Hasan's family hired retired Army Col. John P. Galligan, a former military judge at Fort Hood, to be Hasan's attorney. Galligan said he planned to speak with Hasan on Monday night at Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston. [snip]
"Let's put it this way: They have not been told more than you or I have been getting by watching TV," Galligan said in an interview. He said he wanted it "on notice that Major Hasan has a lawyer and no one should be having contact with him without counsel."
Senior U.S. investigators said Monday night that Hasan will be charged in military court based on an agreement reached between the Justice Department and the Defense Department.
Several civilian lawyers who specialize in defending military clients said they think the Fort Hood shootings will be a capital case. "No-brainer, this one is it," said Guy Womack, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel.If Hasan were charged in the Fort Hood case as the gunman, "the strongest defense would be for him to say he has suffered post-traumatic stress from getting ready to deploy and years of debriefing soldiers who have been there as part of his work and that he reacted violently due to that stimulus," Womack added.
Post-traumatic stress disorder BY OSMOSIS??? Please!
It took British spies to identify Najibullah Zazi, who then notified the US intelligence agencies, which prevented an attack in New York City subways, which would have been the biggest attack on US soil since 9/11. Maj. Hasan has now taken that position.
Zazi, from Denver, Colorado, is understood to have been given instructions by a senior member of al Qaeda in Pakistan over the internet.
The alleged plot was unmasked after an email address that was being monitored as part of the abortive Operation Pathway was suddenly reactivated. (UK Telegraph)
The useful idiots are out as usual. Senator Lindsey Graham, explains to us how the Fort Hood attack is certainly not about Islam, or the war. (Islam in Action)
Now tell me, is academic research a legal defense for killing 13 innocent humans and injuring many more? Somehow I don't think so.
If it was a perfect world, this sandnigger savage would be skinned gutted and hung out to dry. Thats all i have to say on the subject.
Posted by: PALADIN | November 10, 2009 at 07:51 PM
Chris Matthews was 'busted' a couple years ago, after pro-terrorist comments he made at a Canadian college were released. He, of course, took the usual lying liberal tact, and claimed he'd been taken out of context.
So I suppose his latest moronism is also taken out of context?
Chris Matthews is a criminal moron. Period.
Posted by: Skunkfeathers | November 10, 2009 at 05:55 AM
"is academic research a legal defense for killing 13 innocent humans and injuring many more?"
No, but they'll most likely argue for insanity or anything the left and their islamist apologists can think of to spare this vile killer.
Posted by: MK | November 10, 2009 at 03:26 AM