This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at

Fort Hood Jihadist Nidal Hasan Claims He Acted "In Defense of Islamic Leadership"

June 4, 2013

Fort Hood Jihadist Claims He Acted in "Defense of Islamic Leadership"

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 4, 2013 @ 1:15 pm In The Point

That's Nidal Hasan's actual defense strategy. And it makes the Workplace Violence claim put out there by Obama Inc. as credible as the airborne PTSD claims.

Hasan isn't just claiming defense of Islam. He's claiming defense of Islamic leadership, namely Al Qaeda leaders. It's hard to turn that into anything but acting as part of an Islamic terrorist group, formally or informally.

The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood shooting says he'll show evidence at his trial that he opened fire because Islamic leadership was in imminent danger.

Maj. Nidal Hasan told the judge Tuesday that he needs a three-month delay to prepare to represent himself at trial. He faces the death penalty or life without parole if convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

The judge, Col. Tara Osborn, said she had some questions about Hasan's defense before she would rule on his delay request.

A "defense of others" strategy requires defendants to prove they killed a person or people to protect others from immediate danger. Many of the soldiers killed on the Texas Army post were preparing to deploy.

The families of soldiers murdered and wounded by Hasan have been arguing that they should have been awarded medals. The Obama Inc. argument has been that this was workplace violence and that treating it as an act of terror would undermine Hasan's defense.

But now Hasan's defense is that it was indeed an act of terror. There goes Obama Inc's last excuse.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine:

URL to article:


After Nidal Hasan Admitted Helping the Taliban, Can We Treat the Fort Hood Massacre as a Terrorist Attack?

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 4, 2013 @ 11:05 pm In The Point

Back in April, the Pentagon shot down an item in the DAB to award Purple Hearts to the victims of Nidal Hasan by asserting that, "The DoD position is the Purple Heart is awarded to Servicemembers who are killed or wounded and require treatment by a medical officer, in action against the enemy of the United States, as the result of the of any foreign hostile force, as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States. To do so otherwise would irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration."

And the response insisted that Hasan was a lone wolf unaffiliated with any terrorist group, even though Hasan had corresponded with Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Hasan asked Anwar Al-Awlaki, if he considered Muslim soldiers who killed Americans like "Hasan Akbar or other soldiers that have committed such acts with the goal of helping Muslims/Islam (Lets just assume this for now) fighting Jihad and if they did die would you consider them shaheeds (martyrs)?"

Hasan's defense now makes it clear that this is how he considers his actions. Despite the best attempts to cover up his actions, he stated in open court that he had acted to aid the Taliban.

The judge read from his request for a continuance, seeking to confirm Hasan's defense: that he acted "because death or grievous harm was about to be inflicted on the members of the Taliban and Mullah [Mohammed] Omar specifically by the people against whom you used deadly force."

"That is correct," Hasan said.

There is no longer any dispute about Hasan's motives or affiliations. He was acting to aid the Taliban after corresponding with an Al Qaeda leader.

If that doesn't mean the definition of enemy of the United States and international terrorist attack, what does?

The Pentagon denial was made with the additional excuse that it "would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan's ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial. Such a situation, prior to trial, would fundamentally compromise the fairness and due process of the pending trial."

That is no longer an issue. Hasan has all but declared that he is a terrorist. The claim of workplace violence is no longer tenable. Hasan's defense is that he was acting in support of the Taliban. It is ridiculous to argue that awarding a Purple Heart to the survivors will undermine his defense more than his claim that he was acting to protect Mullah Omar.

There is no further basis for denying that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. There is a better case for Nidal Hasan being charged as a terrorist than there is for many Muslims who have been charged as terrorists.

It's time to end the charade.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine:

URL to article:

This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at