The Jury Talks Back


An ongoing mystery: Fort Hood attack motive stumps New York Times

Filed under: Uncategorized — aunursa @ 8:26 am

Last week at a hearing for Major Nidal Malik Hasan, charged with killing 13 in the Fort Hood attack, the New York Times could not determine a motive for the attack.  The article, titled At Hearing on Fort Hood Attack, Few Clues, does present a compelling mystery. 

A parade of prosecution witnesses — many of them still struggling with their wounds — provided a gripping, almost cinematic account of the attack in which 13 people died and dozens were wounded.  Yet the gunman and his motive remain an enigma. And there were few clues about what sort of defense Major Hasan, a 40-year-old Army psychiatrist, would mount in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

See if you can find any clues that the Times reporter may have missed…

[M]ore than two dozen other soldiers and civilians spoke under oath about their struggle to survive in the terrifying minutes after he yelled “Allahu akbar!” — “God is great” in Arabic — and started shooting.

Hmmm … What would Sherlock Holmes think?

Over three days, more than two dozen witnesses at the hearing described how Major Hasan shouted “Allahu akbar!” and then opened fire with a laser-guided handgun at a crowd of soldiers as they waited to see medical staff members before deployment.

Any ideas?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Major Hasan, a Muslim whose parents immigrated from the West Bank, fired first at a crowded waiting area, then he walked around and shot soldiers as they tried to hide under desks, chairs and tables, only pausing to reload and saying nothing after his first outburst, several witnesses said.

Please send any tips that could help determine the motive to New York Times reporter James C. McKinley Jr.

* * * * *

This latest instance of media mystification at the motives for terrorist attacks recalls previous examples:

LA Times Editors: “We just can’t solve the mystery of why that Muslim guy shot all those Jews”

CNN: Why the Jewish Center?


  1. Perhaps the NYT hit their intellectual firewall after walking and chewing gum at the same time??

    Comment by ninasimone — 10/23/2010 @ 11:51 am

  2. From the Times article:

    The witnesses spoke at an Article 32 hearing, a military proceeding in which an investigating officer, in this case Col. James L. Pohl, listens to evidence and decides whether to recommend a court-martial, what charges should be filed and what the penalty should be.

    Mr. McKinley is probably on the edge of his seat wondering if this Article 32 proceeding will end up recommending court-martial for Mr. Hasan.

    Comment by JVW — 10/23/2010 @ 10:59 pm

  3. Patterico has a category “Political Correctness” on the main site; t’would have explained it all.

    Comment by The not-baffled Dana — 10/24/2010 @ 7:10 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview

Powered by WordPress.