Back in the days after 9/11, a frequent complaint was that the authorities had failed to "connect the dots". The danger was there; the facts were there; but people did not connect the dots.
Which brings me to a couple of recent situations. First, the "flying imams." Back in 2006 six Muslim clerics were taken off of a US Airways flight because their behavior had raised concerns:
"Passengers reported the men had been praying loudly in the terminal, chanting ‘Allah, Allah’ and cursing U.S. policies in Iraq. Once on board, the men took separate seats in the cabin’s front, middle and back. Two imams asked for seat belt extenders, which include a heavy metal buckle that could be used as a weapon, but left them on the floor. The pilot was told that three of the men had one-way tickets."
After a federal judge held that the defendants could be liable for civil damages and that the authorities did not have probable cause to detain the imams, the airline and the airport effectively gave in and paid the imams to settle the lawsuit. Of course, the defendants denied any wrongdoing in the settlement, but one wonders what some flight crew do will, or what some airline will allow some flight crew to do, next time. Which may be, if you’re cynical, exactly what the imams wanted.
Then there are the shootings last week at Fort Hood. Some of the statements and actions of the gunman, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, were quite disturbing. Wednesday’s Washington Post reported on a talk Major Hasan gave in June of 2007 to a group of fellow Army doctors
"Under the ‘Conclusions’ page, Hasan wrote that ‘Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!’
The final page, labeled ‘Recommendation,’ contained only one suggestion:
‘Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as "Conscientious objectors" to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.’"
At about the same time, U.S. intelligence agencies picked up Major Hasan’s e-mails to a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen, who was apparently detained by Yemeni authorities from 2006 to 2007 at the U.S.’s request, but they never told the Army about them. Some people have identified the reason as political correctness. But Daniel Henninger in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal suggests another possibility:
"The problem is confusion. The combatants at each end of the spectrum in the war over the war on terror know exactly what they think about surveilling suspected terrorists. But if you are an intel officer or FBI agent tasked with providing the protection, what are you supposed to make of all this bitter public argument? What you make of it is that when you get a judgment call, like Maj. Hasan, you hesitate. You blink.
Now everyone thinks the call was obvious. But it wasn't so obvious before the tragedy. Not if for years you have watched a country and its political class in rancorous confusion about the enemy, the legal standing of the enemy, or the legal status and scope of the methods it wants to use to fight the enemy."
So, what do we have? The flying imams collect money in Minnesota from an airline scared that it would lose a lawsuit and have to pay megabucks in damages because some its employees were just trying to do their job. Major Hasan makes statements that are totally off the wall, while at the same time he is contacting a radical imam in Yemen, but nobody does anything, whether for fear of being called a racist and a bigot or getting accused of breaking the rules on surveillance of potential terrorists by whoever wins the next election.
Connect the dots.
Comments