Friday, November 20, 2009

BARACK OBAMA

The New York Times Botches the Facts to Argue Fort Hood Wasn't Terrorism

Robert Mackey of the New York Times, perhaps sensing the political gravity of concluding that we just witnessed the first mass-casualty attack of jihadist terrorists on American soil since 9/11, lays out the reasoning as to why the Fort Hood shooter would not be considered terrrorism:

While there are important differences between the soldiers killed at Fort Hood and the examples Mr. Walzer cited — they were filling out forms at a readiness center in Texas before deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, and they were killed by a member of their own army — it is obviously true that soldiers getting ready to go to a war zone are not civilians or noncombatants.

The New York Times needs to read more about the shootings. One of the victims, Michael Grant Cahill, was a civilian employee, a physician's assistant. Yes, he had served in the Army National Guard before working at Fort Hood. But as a doctor and as a civilian, he fits the definition of "non-combatant" under the Geneva Conventions.

Aside from any other act, Hasan attacked and killed a civilian, making this fit quite easily under most definitions of terrorism.

UPDATE: Readers note that the pregnant soldier offers another case where, in many eyes, Hasan killed an innocent civilian. Of course, to too many folks, that pregnant soldier represents only one casualty.

11/20 10:13 AMShare