What kind of behavior and characteristics trigger scrutiny from The Department of Homeland Security and its head, Janet Napolitano? It seems that Major Hasan's behavior raised no official eyebrows despite his outspoken views and possible links to radical extremism. In a world of political correctness and irrational fear of even the appearance of profiling, did concern for not offending Hasan's Muslim faith trump the numerous red flags that are littered in his deadly wake?
Despite subsequent apologies and denials to the contrary, The Dept of Homeland Security led by Janet Napolitano profiled conservative Americans as potential domestic terrorists: "This was an assessment, not an accusation," Napolitano continued. "It was limited to extremists those who seek to commit violence within the United States. And all this was meant to do was to give law enforcement what we call 'situational awareness.'"
"The last thing I want to do is offend or castigate all veterans. To the contrary, let's meet and clear the air," she said.
A footnote in the report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," said that while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, such acts could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.
As we learned six months ago, the US government was willing to paint with a broad stroke in profiling American soldiers cycling in and out of Fort Hood and similar military installations as potential domestic terrorists. Were they performing equal due diligence with Maj. Nadil Malik Hasan at the same time? Seems that the "situational awareness" was tragically misplaced in this case. Who was the more likely terrorist?
Share
