Lost in the media focus on health care and Asia over the past week is the growing scandal surrounding the shootings at Fort Hood.
Within four hours of the shootings, the FBI told Fox News that the terrorism angle was "not being discussed." They continued to downplay terrorism as a motive throughout that first weekend and when the public first learned about emails between the shooter and an al Qaeda cleric named Anwar al Awlaki, the FBI told reporters on background that the communications were "benign." The bureau had failed to open an investigation of the emails -- which were intercepted in real time -- because their content was determined to be consistent with the kind of research the shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, was conducting in his capacity as a psychiatrist at Walter Reed.
This alone is a scandal. The fact that Hasan was communicating with Awlaki at all should have triggered an investigation. Awlaki had ties to three 9/11 hijackers, had twice been investigated for his connections to al Qaeda over the past decade, had been imprisoned in Yemen at the request of the US government, and was concern enough that the US government was monitoring his communications when Hasan reached out to him. So emails between Hasan and Awlaki could not have been "benign."
Over the past several days we've learned more about the content of the emails. According to reports by ABC News and the Washington Post, Hasan specifically asked Awlaki about jihad, about the permissibility of killing innocents in attacks, and about confronting American soldiers who were killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. In one email, Hasan tells Awlaki he can't wait to discuss these matters and others in the afterlife.
Now, the Post reports
In the months before the shootings, the two discussed how Hasan could make several transactions of less than $10,000, a threshold for reporting to U.S. authorities, according to the source who spoke extensively. Hasan did not explicitly vow to fund terrorist activities or evade tax and reporting laws for contributions, the source said.
"I believe they were interested in the money for operational-type aspects, and knowing that he had funds and wouldn't be around to use them, they were very eager to get those funds," he said.
Hasan, of course, wouldn't need to "explicitly" vow to fund terrorist activities to be a concern. He had emailed with a known al Qaeda radicalizer and recruiter with a history of inspiring attacks on American soldiers.
More disturbing, though, is the second comment from a source familiar with the content of the emails. Why does this source believes that the money was meant to be used for operations? And why does the source believe that both Hasan and Awlaki understood that Hasan "wouldn't be around to use them?"
One could certainly speculate, just given the information that is now public, that Hasan was contemplating an attack of one kind or another. But is there more? Is there information beyond Hasan's questions about the afterlife and about jihad that confirms that Awlaki could have understood that Hasan planned to die?
Those are just the problems on the FBI/law enforcement side of things. Then there is the Army. It is now clear that many of Hasan's colleagues expressed serious concerns about his behavior and his jihadist rhetoric. But other colleagues, including those in positions of leadership, failed to act -- some of them out of concern that focusing on Hasan would be discriminatory.
Then, in the immediate aftermath of the attack, with 13 people dead and 40 injured, Army chief of staff George Casey said publicly that his greatest worry was that the "diversity" of the Army would be compromised if they focused on Hasan's radical Islamic views. "I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," Casey said.
Instead, leaks from the Army and speculation from many in the media focused on PTSD -- post-traumatic stress disorder -- as the main reason behind Hasan's attack. That Hasan hadn't actually seen combat was a pesky detail, explained away by the fact that he had counseled soldiers who had been in combat -- the transitive property of PTSD or something.
Now comes the news that the Army has chosen General Carter Ham to lead the investigation of the Army's handling of Hasan. Perhaps Ham has unique insight into the flow of information in military bureaucracies. It's possible that he is an expert on rhetoric of jihad. But Ham is best known for his views on -- PTSD. However admirable Ham's willingness to discuss his own experiences, let's hope they don't color his review of Hasan and the shooting.
Ham's review is one of several being conducted by the Obama administration. The Army is reviewing the Army's handling of Hasan. Elements of the intelligence community are examining the community's work related to Hasan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has named former Army Secretary Togo West and former Navy chief Vernon Clark to take a big-picture look at the shooting. Meanwhile, however, the administration is stonewalling congressional requests for information. And demands for an outside investigation go unanswered.
All this as the evidence continues to mount of a significant intelligence failure before the attacks and gross incompetence after the attacks. George Casey worries aloud about diversity. The FBI downplays damning emails between the shooter and an al Qaeda cleric.
These are serious problems. They deserve a serious inquiry.
