Yes, many people have mental disorders and are not declared ‘insane’. I would lay money that his crime had more to do with mental health issues than being ‘radicalized’ (based on my limited reading today).
Disagree.
It had to do with him being radicalized, just not in the way that 92010 said. Rather, he was radicalized in the way that his own slide show, and my posts describe.
Imagine someone with BPD tendencies (anxiety, intense mood swings, anger) interacting with white supremist every day who push them, insult them. They don’t shake it off like most people. Their reaction to it builds faster than ‘normal people’ and their anxiety about it stays at high levels for longer. Living like that, with intense emotions all the time, can change a person over time as the stress changes how we process things mentally. When I read things like other soldiers would see him talking to himself. To me, that’s a giant billboard sized sign.
But back to the subject. Does it matter if he was radicalized or had mental issues or both regarding the Purple Heart?
To me that isn’t the issue.
It’s that Purple Hearts are generally awarded for injuries received from “enemy action.”
Is a member of our own armed forces the “enemy,” or the “enemy within?”
Philosophical question.
Given how bad this guy’s military record was, I wouldn’t blame his colleagues, and there apparently wasn’t enough evidence of mental health issues to sustain that type of defense.
He was just…as most violent criminals are, simply a violent, belligerent POS/arsehole.
or maybe he got poor representation “l‐Haqq had no direct experience in death‐penalty cases, nor did the two Army officers who have been assigned as counsel. Eventually, Al Haqq withdrew his representation over lack of payment.”
Philosophical question is more part of the main thread question. He wasn’t an “enemy” in the traditional sense but could have been an “enemy within”, but what does that entail? I skimmed a lot admittedly looking at things but nothing stood out that he was one of those guys that was recruited specifically to kill people. Goggle search says he was a lone perpetrator. So it looks like, to me, that he was Islamic and had mental issues that lead to the violence. Or he was just a Islamic and also a violent person as you present. So it seems to me not an “enemy” or an “enemy within”.
Then in your mind, a Purple Heart isn’t warranted for his victims?
Just asking!
That said, he obviously identified as Muslim, but the Nation of Islam has beliefs that are way outside of mainstream Islam, so I have a hard time thinking of him as a true Muslim.
The military has a list of racist and extremist groups that servicemembers are required to reject participation in. They include the usual suspects like the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, etc., but at least since the Clinton Administration when I first started serving, that list has also included the Nation of Islam. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies it as a HATE GROUP. The ADL regards it as a bigoted anti-Semitic group.
So I don’t necessarily buy the argument that he was “Islamic.” The Nation of Islam is a perversion of what it means to be Islamic, at best.
He was violently radical, but in a racial way that was exacerbated by his feelings concerning his having been disciplined for poor performance and told he wouldn’t be allowed to take part in the mission.
Despite all the claims of mental health issues from his parents, NO evidence of that was presented at trial to back them up. No medical records. No expert testimony. No examination and diagnosis. NOTHING.
He had already been demoted from his squad leader position, so his performance was clearly sub-standard.
His response to that was to exact violent retribution…which is what belligerent POSes do when they are justifiably disciplined or demoted.
At one point, he had been in ROTC in college but failed to qualify for a commission, so he enlisted instead, and wasn’t much better as an enlisted person. Poor performer with violent radical tendencies, nothing less and nothing else.
Remember, during his trial, he took a sharp object out of courtroom, and then asked the guards if they could remove his handcuffs so he could use the restroom. He then took out the object and STABBED one of them. Were you aware of that?
That should give you some idea of what what a violent, belligerent POS this guy was. He couldn’t even be on his best behavior at his own death penalty murder trial.
Two appeals courts upheld his sentence and the USSC rejected review via writ of certiorari, so his judgment and sentence both stand and his appeals are exhausted.
All that remains is for him to be executed. When will that happen? Don’t hold your breath because, as I said, we haven’t conducted a military execution since 1961.
The POTUS would have to sign the death warrant.
Clearly it was enemy fire. One of the worst part about it is that he successfully hid his radicalization. That was hopefully a giant wake ip call to many.
No he was not a violent criminal. He was clearly radicalized. That should be easy to understand. Unfortunately he is not alone. European countries are refusing to take back ex soldiers that went the isis way. A major contribution to radicalization is through mosques that are not really mosque but an epicenter for an imam that has one goal radicalize as many as he can.
1 Like
Yep. Just ask people who work in public schools. And “not insane” people can be every bit as dangerous as those who fit the definition, if not moreso.
The fact that this guy’s defense team couldn’t establish insanity such that it would produce an acquittal has zero bearing on whether mental and/or emotional disorders were the root cause. Even if you can point to “radicalization,” that’s not necessarily the end of the story.
To be correctly identified as an “enemy” in the combat sense, I would have looked for solid evidence that he was acting under the direction or in furtherance of some enemy objective, not just a general hatred for his fellow soldiers or the military in general. I assume that the Army found that to be the case.
1 Like
It’s more than that though.
NO evidence of any mental health issue was produced at trial to support the family’s claims to that effect.
The dude stabbed one of his own guards during his trial.
True POS. Nothing else and nothing less.
I wouldn’t be so sure.
That would mean finding that he supported the aims of Saddam Hussein. Pretty hard to make that finding in my view.
They probably just decided that the enemy within was enough of an enemy (debatable) and went forward based on that.
Yes. He was BOTH.
Of course he was a violent criminal. That’s why he was convicted of the violent crime of murder and sentenced to die.
AND he was radicalized.
But not in a Jihadist way.
Rather, in a violently racist Nation of Islam hate group way.
Not necessarily. It could have been any “enemy” position or just general “terror.”
It’s not my place to second-guess them. And I’m not privy to the trial transcripts, nor do I have any interest in digging into that, so I don’t know what was presented at trial.
You can call someone a “true POS” and not exclude mental health or emotional disturbance, and it’s much easier. It just doesn’t necessarily tell the whole story. There wouldn’t be medical records if its something that was never diagnosed or developed after school. “Violent and radical tendencies” by definition indicates that something wasn’t right, and he probably should have been kicked out before he had a chance to hurt someone.
Hmmm. No.
The enemy in that conflict, or at least, at that point just prior to the invasion of Iraq, was Saddam’s regime.
Unless he was advancing his aims, which is doubtful, that theory makes no sense.
And guess what?
It’s everybody’s place to ask questions about this. It’s called free thinking. I think that some of those questions haven’t been adequately answered. Given that, I reject the theory that it isn’t your or anyone else’s place to second guess this.
I think that speculating that he had mental health issues in the absence of any documentation of such is, as we say in court a) assuming facts not in evidence, and b) well, OBJECTION….SPECULATION….SUSTAINED!!!
And in any event, wouldn’t explain his actions as well as simply looking at his comparatively far better documented associations with an extremist hate group.
His characterization as a POS starts there, and ends with premeditated murder and a subsequent stabbing.
And his motivations for doing what he did are that much clearer when one considers those associations.
You know friends if this was the first time you might think…whatever but no this is at least the sixth, eighth threads that he is responding this way.
From the guy that claimed the perpetrator here was ISIS inspired, even though ISIS didn’t exist until about a decade later.
Good one man.
I don’t see the “enemy” fire angle. Sounds more of a guy that snapped.
1 Like
I appreciate and like General Petraeus comments:
Addressing Soldiers, Veterans and Families gathered inside the museum, Petraeus called the event “solemn, profoundly meaningful, and long overdue.”
This is chilling and reflects how naive we were:
“We had prepared ourselves for the casualties we knew might come in combat,” he said. “We had not prepared ourselves for casualties inflicted by one of our own.”
I love this:
“The enemy seeks not only to kill or wound,” Petraeus said. “The enemy seeks to break faith — faith in one another, faith in the mission, faith in our institutions and faith in our country. … He failed.”
Who is Hasan K. Akbar?
According to John Akbar, after several years with
NOI, he came to realize that the NOI’s teachings
were divisive. He decided to leave NOI, but
Akbar’s mother intended to stay with the group.
She left her husband and took her children to
South Los Angeles. They moved into a place
directly across the street from their new mosque,
the Bilal Islamic Center, which is tied to NOI and to
Saudi financiers
The part above is key. i mentioned it earlier radicalization has more than one common denominator but this one comes regularly especially in Europe.
The correlation between a mosque’s imam and the radicalized. Extremist imams are expelled from mosque on a regular basis. The European authorities are overwhelmed by it. This is what happens when the EU fails at protecting its own citizens.
Here is another proof that this p.o.s. was indeed radicalized:
• Like Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 and
wounded more than 30 others at Ft. Hood in
November 2009, Akbar appears to have been
motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs,
anger, and opposition to U.S. military action
in Muslim countries.
– Notably, in an email to Al‐Qaida‐linked imam
Anwar al‐Awlaki, Hasan reportedly asked if
Akbar would be considered a shaheed (or
martyr)
If he was not radicalized how in the world would he ask this question and to whom? Yes re-read the above.
Was he unstable? I will ask it in another way. What is the best way to defend the indefensible? Make the jury believe he was indeed unstable. He clearly did not convince the jury.
What happened was a major wake up call to all. His recruiting officer clearly did not do his due diligence when he was recruited.
1 Like