November 21, 2009

The most strained reasoning why Nidal Hasan's actions weren't "terrorism"

... comes from the New York Times:

While there are important differences between the soldiers killed at Fort Hood and the examples Mr. Walzer cited they were filling out forms at a readiness center in Texas before deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, and they were killed by a member of their own army it is obviously true that soldiers getting ready to go to a war zone are not civilians or noncombatants.

Get it? Since Hasan murdered soldiers, technically that ain't "terrorism" (as defined by the Geneva Convention). Unfortunately, it seems that one of the vicitims, Dr. Michael Grant Cahill, was a civilian, so sorry NYT.

(Funny that such a distinction is achingly made in such a case as this; however, when the US government uses the same distinctions regarding "unlawful combatants," entities like the Times have a coronary.)

Posted by Hube at November 21, 2009 10:22 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)