The tragic murder of three people and wounding of 180 others, many grievously by two Muslim brothers with the 19-year old brother surviving his older brother has echoes of the 11/05/2009 Fort Hood massacre by U.S. Army major Nidal Hasan that caused 42 casualties,13 killed, 29 wounded.
In both cases, President Obama warned against “a rush to judgment”. Most recently: “That’s why we take care not to rush to judgment – not about motivations of individuals, certainly not about entire groups of people.”
A significant difference, concerning the Boston bombing: Obama said “the FBI was investigating the twin bombings as a terrorist act”. He also admitted: “Anytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terrorism.” Obama never mentioned terrorism in connection with the Fort Hood massacre.
Although Major Hasan shouted “God is great!” in Arabic as he opened fire on unarmed military personnel at Fort Hood and despite presentations to other military psychiatrists wherein the Major justified Muslims killing non-Muslims – after Obama, as Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, visited Fort Hood and spoke to military personnel and their families – news media reported “motivation for the attack was unknown”. Eventually, the DOD categorized the Major’s rampage – “the deadliest attack on a U.S. military base (13 killed, 29 wounded)” – as “workplace violence”.
It was also reported – about “the 19-year-old: who is accused of helping carry out the attack that killed three people and wounded 180 others, many of them critically, near the finish line of Monday’s race.” – “No motive has been revealed for Monday’s attack.”
Earlier this year, a military judge set Maj. Nidal Hasan’s court-martial for May 29, 2013 at the Texas Army post. After about four weeks of jury selection, testimony is expected to begin July 1. If the trial starts on schedule, it will be slightly more than three and one-half years since the major’s murderous rampage.
So, if the Boston terrorist is afforded the same legal protections – albeit in civilian rather than military court – and numerous trial delays as has the murderous major, his trial might begin by October 2016. Obviously, when President Obama calls for “no rush to judgment” for murderous Muslims, his call is heeded in spades.
It’s appears Obama views Muslims murdering non-Muslims, even on U.S. soil, as a lesser crime wherein the perpetrators’ civil and legal rights take precedent over their victims and survivors rights to justice. One might reasonably expect a U.S. President, who is Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, to want speedy justice for victims and survivors of the Fort Hood attack.
Now, it’s time to refute the President’s recent statement about not rushing to judgment: “That’s why we take care not to rush to judgment – not about motivations of individuals, certainly not about entire groups of people.”
By looking back at two situations, it’s obvious neither Obama nor supporters follow his high-minded advice. In the first situation the President himself rushed to judgment. In the other, Obama failed to warn about rushing to judgment and allowed civil rights groups and mainstream media to convict an alleged killer in the court of public opinion. In both cases, the victims were blacks; their alleged attackers were not black.
In July 2009, “President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, ‘acted stupidly’ in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor … after a confrontation at the man’s home.”
Regardless of any subsequent actions to ameliorate his hasty statement, Obama clearly rushed to judgment about one policeman’s motivations as well as the mental acuity of Cambridge police.
When Trayvon Martin was killed February 26, 2012, did Obama warn against a rush to judgment against George Zimmerman? Did he warn against pre-judging motivations of Zimmerman or local police? If he did, his warnings were unheeded by civil rights activists and mainstream media who virtually lynched Zimmerman in the court of human opinion.
Eventually, a trial lawyer called for facts to decide the trial’s outcome. Mark NeJame, “a CNN contributor who has practiced law, mainly as a criminal defense attorney, for more than 30 years” wrote: “Although Trayvon Martin’s killing is a tragedy at the highest level, his death and the prosecution of George Zimmerman symbolize so much more. The issues they raise belong in the public discourse, but should not influence or cloud the facts or outcome of the case.”
Finally, consider a “what if” regarding the Boston Marathon bombers. What if – instead of two Muslim brothers allegedly killing three and wounding 180 others, some grievously – the two brothers were Anglo and Christian originally from Mississippi but Boston residents for about 10 years?
Mainstream media restrained by the same Political Correctness – that prevented the U.S. Military and FBI from acting upon Major Hasan’s radical statements and PowerPoint presentations to other military psychiatrists – have refrained from labeling the alleged perpetrators as “militant Muslims” or “radical Islamists’.
However, in our what if scenario, the Anglo brothers would be pilloried as “domestic militia”, “fundamentalist Christians”, “white supremacists”, “members of a vast right wing conspiracy” and “domestic terrorists whose objective was to destroy the venerable Boston Marathon”. The Justice Department would try the case in federal court in order to seek the death penalty. Liberals would call for the bombings to be classified as hate crimes so penalties could be doubled.
Liberals and their media counterparts may complain the “what if” scenario impugns their journalistic integrity. But, if they have a scintilla of honest analytical reason remaining, they will admit a simple what if understates the delight and fervor with which they would attack the youthful, transplanted Mississippians if they were the actual culprits.