On Thursday November 5th, a man opened fire at a military base Fort Hood in Texas. The gunman killed 13 and left 30 wounded. The shootings were devised by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a mental health professional that worked at the base. Sources say that he was awaiting his deployment to Afganistan. This could be the trigger for his insanity—the fact that he was about to be sent to a very violent place. I remember watching the news while this story broke. I was very upset to hear that yet another mass shooting had occurred in the United States. What was his motive? Why did this happen? The American public has yet to find accurate answers to these questions. However, there is plenty of speculation to go around…
I was watching the local news and was surprised when I realized the reporter was reporting from an Islamic Center in Los Angeles. Why was she doing that? Then I heard the gunman’s name, Hasan. So they are turning this into a militant Islamic attack? Well he is a Muslim so he must be associated with terrorist organizations from Afghanistan. Then you get reports like this one that say that it is “possible” that Hasan had relationships with two of the 9/11 hijackers. Could these people have influenced him to side with radical Islamists whose aim is to destroy the United States? Well, maybe, but more investigation needs to happen into the dynamics of these relationships. I do not think that because “all were in the area at the same time” means that they were friends.
View more about his possible motive: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5581022n&tag=api
One report states: “Questions still remain unanswered whether this was an act of terrorism or just a soldier’s stress mismanagement.” This sentence indirectly defines terrorism as an apparatus coming from the Middle East. The reporter is stating that a question still remains if Hasan had direct ties to al-Qaeda, because, if not, well it’s not classified as terrorism. I tend to think that a mass killing of 13 people can be easily defined as terrorism.
People just do not want to accept the fact that this could be a case of American home grown terrorism. What if he had no contact with terrorist abroad and that his anger and violent behavior were cultivated on our own soil? Well, maybe that is a little too simplified. You cannot deny the fact that he practices Islam and that could have very well defined the reasons he perpetuated this horrific act of violence. But is it responsible to immediately report that there are possible connections with the terrorist organization al-Qaeda?
Many of the reports I read attempted to connect him to al-Qaeda because his name was Hasan and because he practiced Islam. They want to create a good versus evil scenario where al-Qaeda inspired terrorism is the evil and U.S. soldiers are the good. I think in this case, it is more accurately classified as an army psychiatrist who did not want to be deployed as the bad and, well, there really is no good.
The best part of this entire story? He survived his own suicide mission. Hasan was actually able to recover from the four gun shot wounds that took him down during his rampage. This means that we will be able to find the answers that we are looking for—assuming he is not assassinated or commits suicide first. We can only hope that his motives will be revealed because I know I am not the only one that is curious. And all this speculation is killing me.
UPDATE: The radical imam Anwar Alawlaki, who was the imam at the mosque Hasan attended in Virginia, just posted an interesting commentary on his website entitled “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing.” The comments under the article are rather eerie. Let the anti-Muslim movement commence once again…
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Taking the Death Penalty to the Supreme Court
For the third time, the United States Supreme Court is considering a case about the death penalty for a Californian prisoner. Fernando Belmontes was sentenced to death in 1982, but has since gone through a rollercoaster of appeals and affirmations of his case. Over twenty seven years ago, Belmontes brutally murdered a 19-year old girl by beating her repeatedly with an iron dumbbell in order to steal her radio. His case is not going to the Supreme Court to discuss whether or not he is innocent. Rather, it is to discuss whether or not the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for the inmate.
There are several reasons why his case has gone through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals three times. It is important to consider the perpetrator as a human being with extenuating circumstances rather than a static, cold blooded murderer. He grew up in an impoverished family, with an abusive, alcoholic father who beat both him and his mother. While these circumstances are in no way an excuse for his inexcusable behavior, they ought to be considered in the sentencing of a murderer. However, in Belmontes’ case, this evidence of his past was not brought to light during the sentencing period. Rather, his past violence and trouble with the law were discussed.
Another circumstance that should be analyzed when considering his case is the fact that the judge ordered jurors not to consider evidence suggesting that Belmontes had undergone a sort-of rehabilitation while in prison. His conversion to Christianity and his willingness to help others in his same situation were not considered during the sentencing period. One of the two California Authority chaplains described the man as “salvageable” and that he could be an asset to the prison as he could potentially be used as a counseling resource for other inmates.
In order to look at this appeals situation holistically, one must understand the state of the death penalty in California, a state where death sentences are rarely carried out. With 695 prisoners currently on death row, we have the largest row in the nation. However, only 13 of these inmates have been executed since the death penalty was reestablished in ’77. This is in direct contrast to Texas, who has executed 441 prisoners in that same time period. The difference lies in the fact that in Texas, the conservative judges often uphold the death rulings and disallow for the years of litigation that we have in California. But which system is fairer?
I believe that we should get rid of the death penalty. Just consider the amount of resources the Belmontes case is taking advantage of. If we outlawed the death penalty in California, the years and years of resources that litigation consumes would again become available. The story of Fernando Belmontes is violent and tragic. We, as potential jurors, must remember that each and every individual convicted murderer has a story that should be taken into account when considering whether or not to end their life. Or in a Californian prisoner’s case, to be put on some list that means little besides a maximum security cell.
There are several reasons why his case has gone through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals three times. It is important to consider the perpetrator as a human being with extenuating circumstances rather than a static, cold blooded murderer. He grew up in an impoverished family, with an abusive, alcoholic father who beat both him and his mother. While these circumstances are in no way an excuse for his inexcusable behavior, they ought to be considered in the sentencing of a murderer. However, in Belmontes’ case, this evidence of his past was not brought to light during the sentencing period. Rather, his past violence and trouble with the law were discussed.
Another circumstance that should be analyzed when considering his case is the fact that the judge ordered jurors not to consider evidence suggesting that Belmontes had undergone a sort-of rehabilitation while in prison. His conversion to Christianity and his willingness to help others in his same situation were not considered during the sentencing period. One of the two California Authority chaplains described the man as “salvageable” and that he could be an asset to the prison as he could potentially be used as a counseling resource for other inmates.
In order to look at this appeals situation holistically, one must understand the state of the death penalty in California, a state where death sentences are rarely carried out. With 695 prisoners currently on death row, we have the largest row in the nation. However, only 13 of these inmates have been executed since the death penalty was reestablished in ’77. This is in direct contrast to Texas, who has executed 441 prisoners in that same time period. The difference lies in the fact that in Texas, the conservative judges often uphold the death rulings and disallow for the years of litigation that we have in California. But which system is fairer?
I believe that we should get rid of the death penalty. Just consider the amount of resources the Belmontes case is taking advantage of. If we outlawed the death penalty in California, the years and years of resources that litigation consumes would again become available. The story of Fernando Belmontes is violent and tragic. We, as potential jurors, must remember that each and every individual convicted murderer has a story that should be taken into account when considering whether or not to end their life. Or in a Californian prisoner’s case, to be put on some list that means little besides a maximum security cell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
