What should be that response? How should Western societies respond to the generalized problem of terrorism, especially the domestic variety? Constitutional law professor and former National Security Council staffer Philip Bobbitt attempted to provide a comprehensive answer in his grandly ambitious book Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-first Century. In a message that ruffled feathers on every point on the political spectrum, Bobbitt argued that in order to defend Western values of liberty and the rule of law, both domestic and international law would need to become more muscular. Bobbitt rejected that there is a trade-off between civil liberties and government power. In a future world of "market-state terrorism" he fears we are headed to, Bobbitt argued that more law authorizing more surveillance and more foreign intervention would be the only way to protect basic liberties.
After an initial flurry of attention, Terror and Consent seems to have been shelved to collect dust. Without another 9/11 or even any small ball terrorism inside the U.S., no one has had any need for Bobbitt's theories.
Major Hasan's case may reintroduce us to Terror and Consent. Many want to know why the electronic surveillance over Hasan was not used to stop him in advance of his rampage. A fair question. Are there other Major Hasans who have similarly self-radicalized and are preparing to strike? Or about to self-radicalize even if they don't know it yet? Is there a government agency responsible for monitoring and preventing this? If so, what should be an acceptable level of false positive identifications and apprehensions?
Bobbitt attempted to address these and other questions in a dense and theoretical way. But maybe it won't be just theory for much longer.
Comments
I have to raise the BS flag on Byrnes' post. The military has everything it needs to deter such incidents. The stickler is letting the military utilize its inherent procedures sans outside politically correct influences. You suggest adding yet another "cottage industry" solution to a problem that does not exist.
People <i>who have a clear responsibility to observe and report this information</i> are a dime a dozen in reference to other areas of concern within the DoD. They are leeches who do not strive to solve the issue they were hired to solve as that would put them out of a job. Thanks, but no thanks Doc.
LEARN HOW TO PREVENT FUTURE NIDAL HASANS
The dilemma caused by the shooting at Fort Hood by Major Hasan exemplifies how each of our programs have failed us. When supervisors, counselors and task forces members rely on subjective references of culture and mental illness, observers miss the signs specific to aggression referenced in post analysis. When observers focus specifically on aggressive behavior, the objective and culturally neutral signs of "aggression" standout, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters.
Major Hasan was under surveillance by two Terrorist Task Forces, one with Department of Defense oversight and the other with FBI oversight. So why wasnt he stopped?
The use of subjective/qualitative indicators, prone to stereotype individuals by culture or religion; versus quantitative indicators and the use of mental health references know to mislead and misconstrue, fails us repeatedly in our attempts to prevent acts of violence. Only when we use the specificity of "aggression" and its objective, culturally neutral indicators can we get-out-in-front of these acts of aggression and prevent them. Why are current systems uses on campus failing us?
The answer is quite simple - The military does not have an objective and culturally neutral system that collects information and evaluates it to determine the degree (or level) of aggression an individual is displaying, nor has it people who have a clear responsibility to observe and report this information. Learn more about the problem and the solution by reading our Blog: http://Blog.AggressionManagement.com
Well, this may not be a very politically correct statement, but I really don't understand why Muslims who have a problem with our system stay here. Saudi Arabia (our Wahhabist "friend") would welcome them. And they have Sharia already.
As for Glenn Beck, I would have to agree with MikeF, as much as I hate to agree with a ring knocker... ;-) Glenn Beck is a weak mind that has found a way to cash in on staying stupid crap in every sentence he utters. The Right's Michael Moore.
Civil liberties don't have to sacrificed to keep us safe. It's the "Political Correctness" that is literally killing us.
This is one of the best rants I've heard so far on the failure of political correctness surrounding Maj Hasan.
It's from a Libertarian talk show host, and I think most of you will agree with it and find it entertaining:
<A href="http://blog.timdoctor.com/2009/11/10/one-flew-over-the-turban.aspx"><B>…;
Maybe cut off all muslim immigration to America?
I know, I know, Hasan was born in America. If his parents were denied entry after being displaced by the Israelis after the 1967 war, we would not be mentioning this guy's name. He would be rotting in a refugee camp somewhere in the ME.
We imported this guy's personal religious -turf war to our land ... and we paid the price.
The list goes on, Somalis living in Minnesota that go back to their former land to engage in war. A Bosnian that shot up a shopping mall in Utah. Those Albanian/Bosnians that were planning the Fort Dix caper.
The Ft Dix guys came to America as adolescents and were thoroughly assimilated. Yet they still hate America. When will we learn?
America's new credo can be summed up by this slogan by Steve Sailer: "Invade the world, Invite the world, in debt to the world."
Anon,
Sigh....I was hoping that you'd just laugh.
Not even a chuckle? That was funny. John Stewart did a much better job with his parody.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-5-2009/the-11-3-project
Sometimes, we take ourselves too seriously.
Sigh. Yes, I have a lot of experience, but I don't consider myself an expert on anything.
Mike
Anon,
Dude, have you ever watched Glenn Beck?
I'm waiting for him to combust on stage in real time.
Glen Beck reminds me of a tortured PhD candidate that can't seem to connect the dots b/c he relies too much on conjecture and revisionist history rather than facts, reason, and observation. Entertaining at times, but it's worrisome to me that many listen to him.
Let me reiterate this for everyone that believes you are safe b/c I have to take my belt and shoes off before I enter an airplane.
Your sense of security is but an illsuion of control.
Since 9/11, you agreed to a huge bureaucracy that almost doubled our annual debt.
My friends and I penetrated every level of your so called defenses in very controlled test. Some of this is public with stories of us emplacing bombs in congressmen's offices.
It's wasted money. GEN Patraeus was right. Sometimes, the more we attempt to secure, the less secure we are.
Go ahead. Extend the debt. Build your walls.
Anon,
You missed my point entirely. I'll rephrase it. I'm a West Point grad with three years in the Middle East. I was top in my class. The Army paid for me to attend training in Airborne, Air Assault, and Scuba School. Additionally, I taught myself Arabaic.
I watch our bombs kill many innocent women and children.
I spent years studying Islamic Fundamentalist and Al Qaeda's fundamentals for revolution.
In theory, I should be the first to be radicalized. Honestly, after Fort Hood, I'm suprised that the Department of Homeland Security hasn't busted down my door after following all the anti-American websites I track. Lord knows we spend enough money in taxes that they should.
In reality, I understand the fundamental flaws of their reasoning. As my pastor suggested, "don't compound ignorance with foolishness."
As a southern white Christian, I can hold my own in any debate with Major Hassan on fundamental Islamisism.
In truth, Maj Hassan was just like another Glenn Beck that acted on fear-mongering. Instead of getting rich, he acted on his beliefs however conflicted.
Perhaps we should make judgments after one incident. Those judgments may be crucial in identifying the next Husan. Will we catch all the crazies? No, but one or two cut short will make a huge difference for those who won't bury their loved one or comrade. Might help morale in the line and in the naton a bit too. Don't confuse this with the torture associated with the GWOT. This is nothing of the sort and is not about so-called profiling (though profiling works). It's called good old-fashioned common sense that when someone displays the behavior Husan did you go after him. The Army of One dropped the ball big time on this but I guess a few ethnic, religious and gender sensitivities may have been soothed. Big shit.
Don't gang up on Reed.
Instead, prior to trial, let me engage Major Hussan in an intellectual debate on the fundamentals and evolution of the righteousness of jihad, revolting against the state, and matrydom. I can make a compelling case.
We'll begin with Sayid Qutb. Since Major Hasan is simply a weak fraud and sociopathic traitor that can't spell jihad, he would lose any debate on Islamic fundamentalism b/c he's never read the text. Instead, he justified his own inner-anger for a life not well lived to rage against the machine.
Then, we can simply hang him.
Mike
Anon - if that's your reaction to this incident, what should we do about this incident?
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54A2SQ20090511?feedType=R…
Who else shall we put under suspicion? Does political correctness only protect Muslims?
Or perhaps we shouldn't make judgments after one incident?
Reed11b: Sell that to family, friends and comrades in arms and I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Oh, I am sorry Mr. and Mrs. X, your son Sgt X Jr. was a victim of our efforts to avoid a false positive. We hope you, your daughter in law, and your grandchildren understand how in the long run the benefits of such an approach and how diversity as we define it actually strengthens our national defense capabilities. "Robust intelligence structures" are watching, count on it, who they are watching and for what reason is another matter. Hooah, Army of One doncha know.
Why are people calling his attack terrorism? Was it conducted with a political purpose or to effect any sort of political change? A more likely explanation is that he 'ran amok,' as discussed in various places, including <a href="http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/11/the-hasan-slide-presentation/#… post</a>. Not all massacres are terrorism. Not all terrorism is killing.
His killing spree seems to stem from the fact that war places huge stresses upon one's psyche - not just front lines personnel. Actively supporting the destruction of people he identifies with in a profound way caused a massive psychological burden on him. The stress isn't the army's fault in that it is a necessary by-product of it's operations - but it is the army's fault they didn't boot him for not having complete loyalty to the armed forces and our nation. Having loyalties to groups other than the United States should preclude people from service. This is not to say all Muslims should be precluded from military service - Hassan himself said as much, but extending them CO status would seem to be a logical thing to do if the army doesn't want to discharge people when their religious beliefs interfere with their ability to do their job.
There is no reason this needs to be a rallying call for anything more than personnel policies. It is not our intelligence gathering ability that failed us this time. It especially doesn't need to serve as a rallying call for increasing the amount of foreign intervention and/or domestic surveillance that the US participates in.
A false positive that leads to questioning risks further alienating someone that may have been on the fence about their feelings and a false positive that wrongly imprisons an individual is a travesty against civil liberties this country must avoid. Plus, if authorities move quickly every time there is a stirring of unrest, how will they find the supporting structures? Robust intelligence structures ARE required to prevent organized terrorist strikes, but lone actor events can only be prevented by physical security measures.