Fort Hood Texas Shooting

Fort Hood Shooting On November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood, a military base close to the city of Killeen Texas, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist opened fire on the people. Thirteen people were murdered and thirty-two other people were injured (Kenber 2013). One of the victims was pregnant and the baby was lost when she died, so some put the figure of murder victims at fourteen. Nidal Malik Hasan has since been convicted of those shootings and has been sentenced to death by a military court.

Hasan has never denied being the killer, nor has he wavered in the explanation of his motives behind the actions. He has stated repeatedly that he is a Muslim and that the United States is at war with Islam. His actions, he claims, are a direct result of his Muslim extremism. Hasan was due to be shipped to Afghanistan where he would have had to fight against terrorists, people with whom he chose to identify. Since this was an intolerable option to him, he chose to attack Americans instead.

This was not a spur of the moment decision, but premeditated murders which were planned out far ahead of their commission. Many people, including the family members of his victims, have requested that the case be classified as a terrorist attack instead of a mass shooting, but those in positions of authority in the matter have thus far not agreed to term the shooting in this way. According to the United States Defense Department, the Fort Hood massacre is a case of "workplace violence" (Jonsson 2013).

Based on the information available, particularly the attitude of the perpetrator himself, it is clear that this should be considered an act of terrorism by a militant Islamist rather than a mass casualty shooting. The legal definitions of acts of terrorism in the United States are separated into international or domestic terror. In both forms, the U.S. code defines terrorism as acts which are violent and dangerous to human life and which violate U.S. law.

Further, they must "appear to intend (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" (Definitions 2013). The purpose of a terrorist attack is rarely one of simple revenge or anger, but to convey a political message intended to alter the policies of the enemy government. Islamist terrorists have attacked the United States in the past for political reasons including the U.S.

support of Israel, the United States' perceived imposition of western culture on Islamist nations, and for the United States' efforts in combating international terrorism in other countries (Lieberman 2011). This is very different from a mass shooting as defined by state and federal criminal codes in the United States. According to those definitions, the acts of violence are numerous and within a specific time frame. They have a motive, which is usually based on desires for revenge or feelings of anger by the perpetrator.

Mass shootings or episodes of workplace violence do not have a political motive. Acts of terror are "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct" (Definitions 2013). If the actions are politically-based, as Hasan himself attests, then the crimes at Fort Hood, Texas should be classified by the government as acts of terrorism.

During his trial, Nidal Malik Hasan fired his attorneys and chose to defend himself, but did not testify nor did he question any of the eighty-nine witnesses for the prosecution or call any himself. However, he has been quite vocal about why he perpetrated this crime. Witnesses reported that while he was carrying out the shootings, Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar!" which translates to mean "God is great" (Esposito 2009).

It is a common mantra yelled by Islamist extremists during their attacks, as witnessed by military personnel during campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq among other documented incidents. Hasan chose to defend himself after his intended plea was denied by the trial's judge. According to court documents, Hasan wanted to enter a plea that his actions were justified as they were in "defense of others" (Jonsson 2013).

He stated that by killing the people at Ford Hood, he was preventing them from being shipped to Afghanistan where they would have engaged in combat and potentially killed Islamist terrorists during combat.

When this plea was denied, defense attorneys acting for Hasan entered a plea of "not guilty." In October of 2012, Hasan sent letters to the Fox News television channel wherein he declared that he was renouncing his oaths of allegiance to the United States and renouncing his American citizenship because the laws of this country do not agree with the Islamic Shariah laws.

It has also been established that Hasan had ties to other extreme Islamists, most notably Anwar al-Awlaki with whom Hasan exchanged emails, which should have been a red flag to the Department of Homeland Security that there was a potential danger to the American citizenry, including training at a firing range and investigating jihad on computers located on the military base (Kenber 2013). Al-Awlkai was killed in a drone strike in 2011 while hiding in Yemen. Interactions with a known enemy of the United States should have alerted someone within the government.

It was also found that Hasan had attended the same mosque as Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, two of the men involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (Hsu 2009). Had Hasan been investigated more thoroughly by the Department, it is likely that this tragedy could have been avoided, however since he was never identified as a potential terrorist threat, the government is now reluctant to label him as such.

However, the official explanation for refusing to label the shooting an act of terror was that it would create an unfair bias against the accused during the trial (Crabtree 2012). It is probable that by relabeling Hasan's action as a terrorist attack, the government would be more liable for the crime, giving a political motive for the refusal to reclassify the shooting as an act of domestic or international terror.

Speculation as to other political motives has been made by various parties, including the theory that the government is reluctant to label any acts of terror because of an attempt by the current regime to make people believe the United States is winning the War on Terror. Regardless of motive, it is evident that there is more than abundant evidence that Hasan is a militant Islamist and has been so for many years.

Despite the fact that the government has refused to classify the shooting as a terrorist attack, it is interesting to note that the military prosecutors used Hasan's radical Islamism as a motive and stressed this part.