Muslim Briefs: a Maniac, a Trial, a Moderate Movement
The New Moderate couldn’t let these stories pass through the pipeline without a few words of commentary…
Dr. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood Maniac
Was he a radical Islamist terrorist or simply a tortured loner who finally toppled off the beam? The correct answer is both. Tortured loner, definitely: he couldn’t find a wife and he agonized about heading off to help Americans fight his fellow Muslims in the Afghan War. (As an Armenian-American, I’d probably pop an artery if the U.S. ever made war on my beleaguered tribe… so I can feel his pain.)
But was he also a terrorist? Yes again. His connection to radical clergyman Anwar al-Awlaki is more than faintly incriminating. (We’re talking about an Islamist fanatic who managed to land himself on the “most wanted” list in YEMEN.) You could call Dr. Hasan a freelance terrorist: an enterprising self-starter on a deadly mission from Allah. But we’re also looking at an unfortunate man with a fatally fevered mind. The New Moderate’s personal, nonbinding verdict: guilty but insane. But only as insane as any Muslim who has been suckered by the teachings of fanatical imams.
It’s time for more of us to acknowledge that radical Islam is nothing more or less than a homicidal cult, and that its gullible adherents need to be deprogrammed. Pronto.
Much Ado Over 9/11 Terrorist Trial
Call me a lunatic-fringe moderate, but I’m elated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his accomplices are slated for an epic public trial just a stone’s throw from the site of their crimes. The Sheikh is one of foulest evildoers of our time; he masterminded not only the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, but an attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II during a trip to the Philippines. His Wikipedia article lists an astounding 29 confessions, including the initial 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing, the Bali nightclub massacre, assassination plots against presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and the personal beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl. Quoth Sheikh Mohammed: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head.”
So why are so many Democrats (and New Yorkers, which almost amounts to the same thing) fretting over the upcoming legal proceedings? Let the trial begin! Let the world come to know the full extent of radical Islamist evil in general, and the crimes of these five demons in particular.
The New Moderate’s personal (and once again, nonbinding) verdict: Guilty as hell for Sheikh Mohammed, guilty as accessories for the four henchmen of the apocalypse. I’m sure these five gentlemen would love nothing more than to die as glorious martyrs, so I’d love to sentence them to a lifetime of being stacked into naked pyramids and taunted by female American soldiers. But in the words of the late President Nixon, ” it would be wrong.” So let the law take its course and do what it will.
Then let the world’s Muslims do what they will. Is more terrorism a possibility? Of course, but we’ve been living with the possibility of Muslim terror for half a century now. Maybe the evils exposed at this trial will finally inflame the Silent Muslim Majority with the courage and conviction to confront their fanatical brethren and reform their religion from within. At the very least, it should open a permanent rift between the moderates and the extremists. And that’s a good thing.
Could It Be? YES! Moderate Muslims on the Web!
During my recent adventures in Web-gazing, I discovered a plucky (and desperately needed) site constructed by Islamic moderates. Laced with irreverent humor and more than a dollop of nerve, Muslims Against Sharia openly denounces “honoricide” (the horrific “honor killings” of Muslim women who have disgraced their familes by being raped, for example), includes a chart contrasting moderate Islamic beliefs with those of the fanatics, and displays a series of mischievous “awards” (my favorite: the “Mad Mullah Award” — though bigoted priests and rabbis get equal billing). There’s also a lively message board for anyone who wants to dive in.
If The New Moderate gave out awards, I’d present the first one to this brave little site. I hope and trust that Allah (and eventually the entire Islamic world) is on its side.
THE NEW MODERATE 
“I’m sure these five gentlemen would love nothing more than to die as glorious martyrs, so I’d love to sentence them to a lifetime of being stacked into naked pyramids and taunted by female American soldiers.”
Bravo!
As a NYer, I’m steeped in arguments about whether having the KSM trial in NY will simply “provide a platform” for al-Qaeda. I wonder where in this great nation of ours you would be able to have a queit, secluded KSM trial (besides a military tribunal, which is now off the table.) You could have it in the smallest little out of the way mid-western town in the fruited plain, but the minute you announced it, the media would descend upon it and essentially ruin life there for the townsfolk.
Bottom line? This kind of trial will be a circus no matter what, and while the world endures KSM attempt to turn this trial into a platform for propoaganda, the world will also see our great nation give this man as open and fair a trial as anyone else accused of a crime. Who do you think’s going to win more hearts and minds?
Good post.
Good comment! Anxious Democrats have been aghast that we’d risk a terrorist incident by staging the trial in New York. But you’re right: if the trial were held in, say, Cincinnati, we’d be exposing that city to the same threat. And yes, it’s not only the radical Muslims who have the opportunity to use the trial as a platform, it’s US. Giving those skunks a fair trial has to be the best possible advertisement for our country. I just hope their lawyers aren’t better than the prosecution!
I should correct myself on one point: it’s not just Democrats and New Yorkers who oppose holding the trial in New York. Sean Hannity and the usual right-wing pundits seem adamant that the “Guantanamo Five” should be given no public trial at all. I think they’re afraid the terrorists might get off on a technicality, which is a valid concern. But a free society has to take such risks if it’s going to remain free. I don’t know about the four henchmen, but KSM has incriminated himself so deeply that it would take a direct intervention from Allah to set him free.
It’s convenient that Hasan as a psychiatrist can diagnose and label himself as insane! It’s inconvenient that his insanity involved shooting bullets at military staff. Why didn’t he choose to become insane at a pumpkin patch by kicking pumpkins? Most moderate psychiatrists don’t stock an arsenal and decide to bring loaded guns and hide same weapons in order to go crazy shooting in a weapons restricted area of a secured military base. Not too concerned on his mental state, or what his motivation was when he pulled the trigger some 50 or more times, and reloaded. Why did he practice at a shooting range with such methodical attention before going insane? The big dilemma remains why he chose to kill random military people, instead of resigning and leaving the source of his problems? Or do we owe him military pay, because he doesn’t want to serve in the military? Joining the military is not a “right”, but it is a privilege earned and can be lost at any point by actions of treason or criminal intent. Military training is purposely tough to weed out those who can’t qualify! Those who can’t maintain this higher level of stress and performance, do quit.
Your argument has merit, hoboduke: I might have gone a little too easy on Nidal Hasan. But notice that I’m saying ALL Muslims who have been indoctrinated by evil imams are essentially insane. This is the larger problem: We have to dispense with political correctness and state unequivocally that radical fundamentalist Islam is a homicidal cult, and that its adherents are all maniacs. This takes guts. The leader of the free world can’t do it, so it’s up to eccentrics like us who have nothing to lose.
By the way, you scored a big point by labeling Hasan a traitor. I don’t think I’ve seen any of the commentators raise this issue, and I completely overlooked it. Of course — an officer fired on his own men to prevent them from fighting; if that’s not treason, I don’t know what is.
The world is a tough place and America has always been a tough but strong country. Providing an enemy with a made-to-order platform for propaganda and the rights of our American justice system seems foolhardy and wrong to me. We will appear weak and wobbly in the face of enemies who will never extend to us the benefit of the doubt. Remember, KSM personally sawed off the head of Daniel Pearl, and televised it to the ecstatic cheers of the radical Islamists around the world. Somehow, I don’t think those folks are going to be convinced of America’s greatness because we treat this murderous barbarian as if he has the right to explain himself and his 13th century beliefs. And for what purpose? So that we look like the good guys? We are the freakin’ good guys.
And, as far as Hasan is concerned, I have no doubt that the man is unbalanced. I also have no doubt that he is a terrorist, driven by religious fundamentalism. The two are not mutually exclusive, any more than they have been in the cases of the religious nutbags who shoot abortion doctors. But why in the world this type of religious nutbag was allowed to remain in the US military can only be explained by a rampant and dysfunctional political correctness in our country that has to be addressed —reasonably and moderately, but decisively, imho.
I posted my comment before I added the last sentence there which was: So, I am in agreement with you, Rick,
about the Hasan case, KSM not so much.
Priscilla: Here’s my rationale for defending the public trial… We all know what radical Islamists believe, and KSM will only be preaching to the choir. Sure, he could create some new radicals as well, BUT I’m hoping that moderate Muslims will be repelled by the man’s murderous extremism when voiced in a public forum. To see the Sheikh stand up in court and try to justify his terrorist activities should drive home the message that moderate Muslims can no longer tolerate homicidal fanatics representing their religion.
The trial could finally draw a line in the sand between the radical Islamists and the moderates. This is crucial, because the only way we’re going to beat the terrorists is if the moderates launch a sweeping reform movement comparable to the Protestant Reformation. So my support for the trial isn’t as much about us looking like the good guys as convincing moderate Muslims that people like KSM and his henchmen are the BAD guys.
Well, I do agree that moderate Muslims need to step up. On the other hand, I think that they probably already know that KSM and his ilk are the bad guys….but these moderates are conflicted, and not only because they share certain beliefs with the Islamists, but also because they are afraid of them. Radical jihadists don’t exactly play fair, and when the moderate Muslim world (not to mention the rest of the world) sees a thug like KSM get exactly what he wants (i.e. his day in American court, followed by heroic martyrdom), after perpetuating unthinkable slaughter on American citizens….well, I think they may be justified in wondering whether or not we have the stomach to defeat the bad guys, and protect the good guys in the process.
The other thing that bothers me is what this will cost in both dollars and security to NYC…I read one estimate that the cost of increased security during the trial will be upwards of $100 million, and it’s hard to imagine that there won’t be increased risk to New Yorkers as a result of the political circus that this trial is certain to be.
I wish I could believe that this trial was going to finally be the catalyst that will cause the rest of the Muslim world to rise up in revulsion against these guys. I just don’t have that faith, and think that the risks are too great. But I guess the die is cast now, and we will find out. I hope for the best.
Priscilla: I’m not exactly betting that moderate Muslims will rise up and start a reformation as a result of the trial. I’m too cynical for that. But since moderate Muslims are our only hope for stopping the terrorists, I’m relying on the trial as a catalyst for action. I don’t think the fact that we’re giving KSM a public trial will convey the idea that we’re weak; in fact, I’m hoping for just the opposite effect: we’ll be perceived as strong and secure enough to listen to the viewpoints of our enemies… then fry ’em. (Just kidding.) Seriously, I hope we don’t execute the terrorists, because that’s exactly what they (and their radicalized co-religionists) are hoping for.
I knew the cost of security would be pretty high, but I didn’t realize it would be that staggering. (I hope it’s not all dumped into the laps of New York taxpayers.) It’s a gamble, but if the trial can launch a moderate Muslim reaction, it’s probably worth the $100 million.
By the way, you’re a good writer, Priscilla. Mrs. Chang must have been a formative influence in your life.
Rick,
Slate has an excellent article as to the real threat posed by the public trial of KSM and associates. It may create a precedent whereby confessions obtained through torture are allowed to stand. Speaking of which, those 29 confessions? Come on, Rick, you’ve read “1984” – KSM’s “confessions” were obviously those of a man who had been broken and would have confessed to having been the third shooter on the grassy knoll in Dallas (and in fact he may have). We are already dangerously close to a police state in this country, and this will push us right over the edge.
Rob: I was a little suspicious of all those confessions at first (the guy would seem to be an Islamist Forrest Gump — he was everywhere at the right time). But KSM’s language clearly indicates that he’s proud of his deeds. I don’t think our government, even under Bush, would go as far as to force him to say, “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl…” His free testimony at the trial will give us a legitimate, uncensored look at his beliefs and deeds.
Interesting….Rick presents an argument over precedent from the left, while the right argues that dangerous precedent will be set requiring foreign enemy combatants to be “mirandized” on the battlefield, before military interrogation of any type takes place. Also, the president said that, even if KSM’s case is dismissed on procedural grounds or if he is somehow aquitted, he would never be released. I’m having a hard time seeing how that would make our system look good…….
Priscilla: I’m sure even the left wouldn’t be foolish enough to insist that enemy combatants be read their rights on the battlefield (or would they?). Suspected terrorists are entitled to a trial — as opposed to being locked away without a chance to defend themselves… but as in any war, you round them up first and try them later.
I hadn’t seen Obama’s statement on keeping KSM behind bars even if he’s acquitted. That would seem farcical. But we have to make sure there are no loopholes (the “procedural grounds”) that could cause a mistrial. I’m assuming we have some good lawyers on our side!
Aah, they don’t make ’em like Mrs. Chang anymore , do they? Thanks for the compliment, Rick 🙂
By the way, I meant to say Rob, not Rick, in my previous comment, but, if we are going to leave open the possibility of enemy combatants, foreign terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, being granted full rights in the American criminal justice system, then, yes, they would have to be read their rights at the time of capture, and would not be able to be interrogated until their defense attorney was present. Senator Graham made that point in his questioning of Eric Holder before the judiciary committee the other day ( and I would add that Graham is among the most moderate GOP senators): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y
And, as far as Obama’s statement is concerned, it was very surprising to me that he would say such a thing, because it is as good as saying that this is just a show trial, which is not the way America does things. But both Obama and Holder have said as much:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/18/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-in-9-11-case-ksm-won-t-walk-free-even-if-found-not-guilty.aspx
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/18/Obama-KSM-will-be-convicted-executed/UPI-18271258595780/
Also, KSM has already confessed to planning 9/11, but his attorney has stated that he will plead not guilty, so that he will be able to grandstand (my word choice there) at the trial.
Last but not least, putting this case before a civilian rather than a military court seems to be a not-so-subtle insinuation that our military courts would not be as fair? As far as I know, US military tribunals are regulated by very strict procedure, and defendants are given many, though not all the rights of American citizens….which seems fair enough to me, given that these guys are NOT citizens, and they are in fact avowed enemies of America.
Eh….I’m going on and on. But this subject interests me so much, because I just don’t get it. The risks seem to far outweigh the rewards, but since I do value your insights, so I’ll try to see this in a more optimistic light…….
Not sure how the appearence of our justice system is supposed to pass a beauty contest? A traitor commited treasonous act by killing military sworn to protect our nation. I don’t care his state of mind. If you see a crazy rabid dog, it might be sad that the dog is shot, but you don’t wan’t your kids attacked as we debate if someone should talk to the dog.
hoboduke: You’re commenting on Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood killer. I think we agree that he’s a traitor and a dangerous maniac; he has to be confined, whether in a maximum security prison or a special prison for the criminally insane. (That’s what his trial will decide.) No dispute there.