What Do You Call It?


Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

15 Responses

  1. Avatar Will Truman says:

    I should add that it seems to me that legally we should call it whatever it takes to give the casualties their due. They died in service to our country by the hands of someone who supports our adversaries.Report

  2. Avatar Mike Schilling says:

    It’s a hate crime.Report

  3. Avatar Kolohe says:

    “The distinction matters in terms of the benefits given to the casualties”

    To what extent? Service members injured in the line of duty (not due to own personal misconduct) are all generally eligible for the same short term and long term medical care, regardless of the location or the circumstances surrounding that injury.

    There may be a small bureaucratic ‘express pass’ benefit to having the Purple Heart, but that is the only thing I believe that the specific characterization of Hasan’s actions may influence. And really, I don’t think anyone would object to either a one-off exception or a rule change that would make blue on blue incidents eligible for Purple Heart.

    So, still, I’m not seeing how it matters very much.Report

    • Avatar Will Truman says:

      I’ll take your word on it that the boost is minimal. A quick perusal says that it’s mostly about getting the Purple Heart rather than a more robust benefits package (the latter mentioned, but mostly in passing).Report

  4. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Can we call it “treason” or is that too olde-fashionede of a concepte?Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq says:

      None dare call it treason.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

      We could call him an enemy combatant if its meaning hadn’t been degraded to “We don’t feel like giving him a trial.”Report

    • Avatar Damon says:

      A formal charge of Treason has some very specific requirements. This convo often occurs when some spy of ours is caught selling secrets to some other state.

      “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Wikipedia cite. This is usually a difficult bar to pass, but in this case, it actually seems consistent with the events….Report

  5. Avatar Slade the Leveller says:

    Thanks for linking to the cesspool of strange capitalization and weird fear of Islam that is the Fox News comment section. It is in reading these that makes me sure in my belief that a return to power of a Republican president will mean, as sure as we know the sun will rise in the east, a return to a stated policy of torture for our misguided Islamist captives.

    Anyway, to the question posed by the title, who the hell cares? The victims are just as dead, as is, likely, Maj. Hasan, in time. What if he had gone postal? Would we still be talking about medals then? Honestly, the whole “controversy” is just mind boggling.


  6. Avatar Michael Drew says:

    If I’m not mistaken his communications with Awlaki played a role in the government’s case for killing Awlaki. I also don’t necessarily view the fact that the target was military as dispositive about whether it was terrorism. That said, I certainly didn’t regard it as terrorism initially.

    Presumably the government is taking whatever position is necessary to limit claims, or possibly just to advance the case that “the terrorists are on the run” (or whatever), as I’m sure is the conservative line holds. But the position is in any case a pretty striking contrast to the position that (a different part of) the government has also taken that clams that Hassan’s communications with Awlaki about his desire to do something like this are evidence that Awlaki was an operational combatant in a terrorist war against the U.S. (if I’m not mistaken).Report

    • Avatar Michael Drew says:

      …I should say that it wasn’t because it happened on a military base that I didn’t think it was terrorism, but just that it looked to me like a guy snapped on the job. But I didn’t know about his intentions wrt to advancing jihad through this act. Obviously a central problem in talking about all this is that the definitions are extremely muddy, but I don’t think it’s very controversial to hold that the intentions behind an ct of violence are relevant to whether it’s terrorism.Report

  7. Avatar notme says:

    Terrorism plain and simple. I advise service members about what benefits they maybe eligible for and I had one of the survivors come to my office. I was embarrassed to tell him that unless congress authorizes otherwise there are certain he wasn’t eligible for. He is one of the two service members I will never forget.

    On another note, I hope that Obama has the guts to sign the execution warrant if it comes before him while he is in office. N.B This is a required step in the process.Report

    • Avatar Kim says:

      I hope you sent him to his congressman.
      This is the sort of thing that their staff is supposed to at least consider.Report

    • Avatar Wardsmith says:

      Could you expand on this? What are the benefits to being injured in a “terrorist” attack? I know that in civilian insurance, acts of war are specifically excluded from coverage -obviously that makes no sense for the militaryReport

  8. I don’t actually get why this wouldn’t be considered workplace violence (and, it seems to me, it could be workplace violence and terrorism). I’ll readily admit that I don’t know the legal ins-and-outs, nor the liability implications of the different terms, but just by a very straightforward definition, this would seem to be violence in the workplace.

    (And, granted, military work can be violent, but this would seem to fall outside of the expected violence… sort of like an actual criminal assault in a hockey game.)Report