Palestinian Nidal Hasan’s Military Pay Went to Charity: Won’t Disclose What Charity or In What Countries

by :

We are told the Military can’t take back Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan’s salary of almost $300,000 accumulated while he awaited trial – or more accurately, while he delayed trial. His money has been given to charity! We won’t be told what charity. Odd isn’t it?

Woman_Furious_1

We can garnishee the wages of a dead-beat dad and put a lien on someone’s house for unpaid debts. Obama has hired multiple-thousands of IRS agents to take your money to pay for ObamaCare, whether you want it or not, but we cannot regain taxpayer money from the monster killer of our own Military personnel. Hasan will never pay his debt to America. Dying by lethal injection won’t come close. If the “charities” are in Palestine, or if the money went to any Muslim country or Muslim interest anywhere in the world, it should be the last groan in bending to the will of this country’s islamization.

Hasan is Palestinian. His brother Anas, is an attorney in Palestine, where other Hasan family members live. Anas spent a lot of time in the U.S. assisting Hasan’s defense team by trying to devise “mitigating circumstances” for his terrorist brother. If the money from American taxpayers went to any Muslim interests, think Hamas, we should be outraged. After all, we’re really talking about jihad, not workplace violence and we should be outraged.

Read more at Maggie’s Notebook

 

Now That Hasan Trial Is Over, Texas Lawmakers Revive Push to Designate Shooting as Terrorism

fort hood presserPJ Media, By Bridget Johnson:

A trio of Texas Republicans announced legislation this week to declare that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism, award the victims Purple Hearts, and make the victims and families eligible for special benefits similar to those offered to 9/11 victims.

It’s not the first congressional effort to get such recognition for victims of the 2009 attack, but it’s the first since Nidal Hasan was found guilty and sentenced to death for the massacre.

The Obama administration claimed it couldn’t change the designation from “workplace violence” because Hasan’s trial was still ongoing. Now that trial is over.

“We are a nation at war, and the location in which our men and women in uniform come under hostile fire from a terrorist should not unduly prejudice them and their families from receiving the full honors, recognition and benefits associated with their courageous service,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).  “As a nation, we have a sacred obligation to take care of them.”

“Justice was served when Nidal Hasan was found guilty and handed the death penalty. But justice has not been served for the victims of this horrific shooting. This legislation will ensure the victims of this obvious act of terrorism receive the benefits they not only need, but justly deserve,” Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) said.“We cannot continue allowing the Obama Administration to turn its back on these men and women by failing to admit this was indeed a terrorist attack on American soil. If the administration had properly labeled and managed the Fort Hood shooting from the beginning, this legislation would not be required.”

The third sponsor, Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), said, “The heinous attack on Fort Hood was a direct attack on the values and ideals our soldiers have sworn to defend. Nidal Hasan, the man who killed 13 and injured 32, said he switched sides in what he called a ‘U.S. war on Islam.’ This was not a disgruntled employee taking his anger out on coworkers, as the Administration would have you believe by labeling this an act of workplace violence. No, this was a terrorist attack meant to harm and kill U.S. soldiers who defend freedom and liberty for all Americans.”

“Because the President has placed more importance on political correctness than upholding his promise to take care of the victims, the victims have been neglected.  This injustice must come to an end, and the Fort Hood Heroes Act is the right thing to do,” Williams continued. “It will restore the benefits, treatment and honor these men and women so rightly deserve.”

The trio announced their bill in Killeen on Monday with shooting survivors in the audience.

The bill also states the U.S. Government has a fundamental duty to our troops to safeguard them against avoidable harm, and the Fort Hood attack could and should have been prevented; the perpetrator, Nidal Hasan, had become radicalized while serving in the U.S. Army and was principally motivated to attack by an ideology of violent Islamist extremism; and Hasan proved himself to be not just a terrorist, but also a traitor and an enemy of the U.S.

Which Muslims Share Nidal Hasan’s Vision of Islam?

nh2By Andrew Bostom:

The Washington Post has published an online gallery of the 50-slide erstwhile “medical grand rounds” given on June 27, 2007 by avowed jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hasan.

Although Hasan merely reiterates salient aspects of classical jihad theory (i.e.,see slides 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45,  and 49), this reality is understandably “shocking” to the elites in our media, military, and government who are now so obviously derelict in their duty to have learned what they still refuse to learn about the living doctrine and history of the religion of peace (or peace and love if you prefer Condoleeza Rice’s even more fatuous construction).

Nidal Hasan’s June 2007 presentation concludes, in full accord with classical (and unrepentant, let alone unreformed) Islamic doctrine regarding jihad war, (slide 49):

“Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please Allah, even by force is condoned by (sic) Islam.”

Our immediate, urgent task is to understand the extent to which Nidal Hasan’s orthodox vision of Islam is a shared vision—and by which Muslims, in particular.

The seat of Sunni orthodoxy Al Azhar University—which functions as a de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam, repeats in “Reliance of the Traveller” its widely distributed manual of Islamic Law, which “conforms to the practice and faith of the Sunni orthodoxy,” circa 1991,

“ Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and, is etymologically derived from the word, mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]…The scriptural basis for jihad is such Koranic verses as ‘Fighting is prescribed for you’ (Koran 2:216); ‘Slay them wherever you find them’ (Koran 4:89); ‘Fight the idolators utterly’ (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim [NOTE: cited in slide 43 of Hasan’s 6/7/07 presentation] that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And the final reckoning is with Allah’; and the hadith by (Sahih) Muslim, ‘To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.’ ”

Even more concrete evidence that this classical formulation of jihad is very much a living doctrine today is apparent in the openly espoused views, and sound Islamic arguments which conclude the contemporary work “Islam and Modernism,” written by a respected modern Muslim scholar Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani. Mr Usmani, aged 66, sat for 20 years as a Shari’a judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court (His father was the Grand Mufti of Pakistan). Currently Usmani is deputy of the Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Council of the Organization of the Islamic Conference—the major international body of Islamic nations in the world, and serves as an adviser to several global Sharia-based Islamic financial institutions. Thus he is a leading contemporary figure in the world of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence. Mr. Usmani is also a regular visitor to Britain. During a recent visit there, he was interviewed by the Times of London, which published extracts from Usmani’s writings on jihad, Saturday, September 8, 2007.  The concluding chapter of Usmani’s “Islam and Modernism” was cited, and it rebuts those who believe that only defensive jihad (i.e., fighting to defend a Muslim land deemed under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He also refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a non-Muslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam (which, not surprisingly, was of some concern to The Times!).

For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not.” “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?” He answers his own question as follows: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.” Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practice Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. Usmani explodes the myths that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking, or that this living institution is somehow irrelevant to our era.

And the preponderance of contemporary mainstream Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia, apparently share with their murderous, jihad terror waging co-religionist Nidal Hasan classical jihad’s ultimate goal: re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate, or global empire based upon jihad conquest and the imposition of Islamic Law. Polling data released April 24, 2007 in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.orginterview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007-1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians-reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed-almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

The findings from the University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org poll are ominous—indicating plainly to any rational mind willing to comprehend—the vast underpinning of support for Nidal Hasan’s orthodox vision of Islam, from the creed’s most respected religious leaders, to ordinary Muslims.  Our  self-righteously ignorant elites—particularly those in political and military  leadership positions—must be held accountable by the American public for their ignorance, and worse still,  deliberate obfuscation of these plain Islamic realities.

 

Still Nothing to See Here

5422385683_Nidal_Hasan_zpsc697e802

By Mark Steyn:

Earlier today Major Hasan was sentenced to death for the murder of 14 men, women and an unborn baby at Fort Hood. But it remains to be seen whether he will ever actually be put to death, and the unimpressive judge’s decision to ban any evidence relating to motive confirms that the military, like other institutions, retains the same squeamishness about Islamic supremacism that helped enable the attack. What follows is excerpted from my book After America – and remains as valid today as when I wrote it:

Not so long ago I saw a two-panel cartoon: On the left hand panel, “This is your brain”; on the right hand panel, “This is your brain on political correctness” – a small and shriveled thing, but now standard issue.

Here’s a random selection of headlines:

Naval History Web Site Highlights Women’s History Month

Senior Navy Leader Receives Black Engineer of the Year Award

Davede Alexander Receives Diversity Leadership Award

Navy Women in Aviation Show Diversity is Rising

Top Pentagon Official Discovers Model of Diversity at Corona Warfare Center, Says Navy’s Doing Diversity Right

CNRH Seminar Teaches Lessons of Hope And Empowerment

The above were all plucked from the United States Navy newsletter. When the first one showed up in my in-box, I thought it might contain under-reported tales of derring-do off the Horn of Africa battling Somali pirates. But instead it’s one diversity-awareness story after another: “Senior Navy Leader Receives Most Diverse Engineer of the Year Award”; “Appointment Of First Somali Pirate to Joint Chiefs Of Staff Shows Diversity Is Rising, Says Top Pentagon Official”.

Well, you say, look, they’re just doing what they need to do to keep the Congressional oversight crowd off their back; it’s just a bit of window dressing. Hmm. In 2009, thirteen men and women plus an unborn baby were gunned down at Fort Hood by a major in the US Army. Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. Major Hasan couldn’t have been more straightforward about who and what he was. An army psychiatrist, he put “SoA” – ie, “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 US history to give a PowerPoint presentation outlining the rationale for the crime he was about to commit. And he gave it 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 favor 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 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 14 people died.

And even when the slaughter had happened, much of the media found it easier to slander both the US military and the general populace than to confront the evidence. Like Nanny Bloomberg, the Homeland Security Secretary Janet Incompetano professed to be most worried about an “anti-Muslim backlash” from the bozo citizenry she had the forlorn task of attempting to hold in check.

As for the army, 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”:

Read more at Steyn Online

Nidal Hasan Sentenced to Death for Fort Hood Massacre

hasan022way_wide-88df90283234287e998669b18c7529c9884fc8ac-412x350Front Page, By Daniel Greenfield:

That headline looks good, the reality less so. The death penalty in the United States means automatic appeals and infinite appeals. Even if Hasan at some point doesn’t decide that he wants to live at any cost and start helping his lawyers out, the long case won’t be over any time soon.

To their credit, the jurors did their job quickly

The jury deliberated for a little more than two hours.

The system however will drag it out

Hasan could become the first American soldier executed in more than half a century. But because the military justice system requires a lengthy appeals process, years or even decades could pass before he is put to death.

The lead prosecutor assured jurors that Hasan would “never be a martyr” despite his attempt to tie the attack to religion.

“He is a criminal. He is a cold-blooded murderer,” Col. Mike Mulligan said Wednesday in his final plea for a rare military death sentence. “This is not his gift to God. This is his debt to society. This is the cost of his murderous rampage.”

When Hasan began shooting, the troops were standing in long lines to receive immunizations and doctors’ clearance. Thirteen people were killed and more than were 30 wounded. All but one of the dead were soldiers, including a pregnant private who curled on the floor and pleaded for her baby’s life.

So decades. Possibly. Hasan is already 43. He could still very well die in prison. Certainly if he really doesn’t want to live, it’s entirely possible that with his level of disability, he might.

Hasan Akbar, another Hasan, and another Muslim terrorist in the military, was sentenced to death in 2005. Here’s how that  case has been going.

On November 20, 2006, Lieutenant General John Vines, commander of the 18th Airborne Corps, affirmed the death sentence against Akbar. Under an automatic appeal because of the sentence, the case was forwarded to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, which upheld the sentence on July 13, 2012. Afterwards, the case was automatically appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, with a final right of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Once Akbar’s appeals are exhausted and if his sentence stands, the President of the United States in his role as Commander in Chief would order the execution to take place, which is currently done by lethal injection. Akbar continues to be confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks awaiting disposition of his sentence.

Good luck getting that order from Obama. It’s misleading to say that Nidal Hasan could be the first soldier executed in some time, because there’s actually a line.

Ronald Gray, a former Army specialist who was sentenced in 1988 after being charged with abducting, raping, sodomizing and murdering an 18-year-old female soldier and a 23-year-old civilian woman, as well as attempting to rape and murder another fellow soldier.

Dwight Loving, a former Army private who, like Hasan, was stationed at Fort Hood when he was sentenced to death in 1989 for the murders of two taxi drivers. He is currently awaiting an appeal despite giving a full confession for the killings on videotape.

How would the country that won WW2 handle this?

On August 8, 1942,  Herbert Hans Haupt was sent to the electric chair. Haupt, a United States citizen, had joined a German raiding party into the United States. The trial of Haupt and his fellow conspirators lasted a month. It was over two months after their capture. Haupt was put to death seven days after the conclusion of his trial.

Too bad that country isn’t around.

Walter Reed officials concerned Maj Hasan would leak intel to enemy if deployed

 pic_giant_080913_SM_Know-Thine-Enemy-Major-HasanPJ Media, By Patrick Poole:

Stunning details emerging from the court martial of Maj. Nidal Hasan implicating the US Army brass in refusing to address Hasan’s evident extremism. Perhaps that’s why the judge in the case yesterday refused to admit prosecution evidence proving Hasan’s jihadist motives — to protect the military from their nonfeasance.

As Bill Gertz noted in a frontpage Washington Times article two months after the attack, myself and two of my colleagues had warned the entire US Army Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection command at their annual conference about internal jihadist threats, giving them all the radicalization indicators save Hasan’s name, rank and serial number. And then there’s Hasan’s infamous powerpoint presentation, which he gave more than two dozen times to military audiences, where he warned of “adverse events” if Muslims in the military weren’t granted conscientious objector status to avoid killing other Muslims in violation of Islamic law (killing infidels was apparently OK). In that presentation he noted past incidents of fratricide, desertion to the enemy, and refusal to deploy as examples of such “adverse events”.

NPR noted today a meeting held by senior Walter Reed officials in 2008, more than a year before the Ft Hood massacre, to discuss the problems related to Hasan:

When a group of key officials gathered in the spring of 2008 for their monthly meeting in a Bethesda, Md., office, one of the leading — and most perplexing — items on their agenda was: What should we do about Hasan?

Hasan had been a trouble spot on officials’ radar since he started training at Walter Reed, six years earlier. Several officials confirm that supervisors had repeatedly given him poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work.

Both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan’s behavior — which they variously called disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent, and schizoid. The officials say he antagonized some students and faculty by espousing what they perceived to be extremist Islamic views. His supervisors at Walter Reed had even reprimanded him for telling at least one patient that “Islam can save your soul.”

Participants in the spring meeting and in subsequent conversations about Hasan reportedly included John Bradley, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed; Robert Ursano, chairman of the Psychiatry Department at USUHS; Charles Engel, assistant chair of the Psychiatry Department and director of Hasan’s psychiatry fellowship; Dr. David Benedek, another assistant chairman of psychiatry at USUHS; psychiatrist Carroll J. Diebold; and Scott Moran, director of the psychiatric residency program at Walter Reed, according to colleagues and other sources who monitor the meetings.

NPR tried to contact all these officials and the public affairs officers at the institutions. They either didn’t return phone calls or said they could not comment.

But psychiatrists and officials who are familiar with the conversations, which continued into the spring of 2009, say they took a remarkable turn: Is it possible, some mused, that Hasan was mentally unstable and unfit to be an Army psychiatrist?

And here’s the punchline:

One official involved in the conversations had reportedly told colleagues that he worried that if Hasan deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak secret military information to Islamic extremists. Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide, like the Muslim U.S. Army sergeant who, in 2003, killed two fellow soldiers and injured 14 others by setting off grenades at a base in Kuwait.

And yet his superiors did nothing. And for good reason. If anyone had actually taken action against Maj. Hasan, they would have been drummed out of the Army for religious discrimination. As Gen. Casey said days after the attack, “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” And the cost of that “diversity” was fourteen souls.

Nidal Hasan Killed American Soldiers Because They Were Going Against the “Islamic Empire”

muslim-darth-vaderBy :

It’s workplace violence, don’t you know?

1. Nidal Hasan was closely associated with an Al Qaeda leader

2. He claimed to have acted in support of the Taliban

3. He wanted to be a martyr

4. He describes himself as a Soldier of Allah, while explicitly repudiating his military service and the Constitution as forms of human idolatry.

5. He talks about killing American soldiers because they were going against the Islamic Empire… a reference to the rising emirates of Al Qaeda

I’m not sure what else Nidal Hasan could do to convince the authorities that he is a Muslim terrorist and that the men he killed and wounded were hurt in a terrorist attack and should be awarded and compensated accordingly.

One year after he waged a deadly shooting rampage at the Fort Hood Army base here in November 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan told a panel of military mental health experts that he wished he had been killed during the attack because it would have meant Allah had chosen him for martyrdom.

“I’m paraplegic and could be in jail for the rest of my life,” Major Hasan told the panel. “However, if I died by lethal injection I would still be a martyr.”

“I don’t think what I did was wrong because it was for the greater cause of helping my Muslim brothers,” he told the military panel.

He denied having remorse and justified his actions by saying that the soldiers he killed were “going against the Islamic Empire.”

Even liberals should be able to figure out that the imperial side is the evil one.

darth-vader-muslim-450x301