http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

Clearly, Army officials have set the bar for suspicion way too high. Heads should roll.

With respect to the ability of the government to investigate people who make suspicious comments, it does exist; it has existed; and it should exist, especially with regard to people who are in the service of the government. I should say, especially if they are in the foreign policy and defense establishments, broadly interpreted.

And we aren’t talking about “thought crime:” that’s another straw man. We are talking about repeated incidents involving a person in authority. If he were on a university campus and had made a single statement with the opposite meaning, he not only would have been investigated, he probably would have lost his job (assuming he didn’t have tenure).

With respect to Treason, I haven’t seen any comments that would rise to the Article III, Section 3 definition helpfully cited above, unless you would consider statements intended to support or protect Islamists to be giving Aid and Comfort to the enemies of the United States. If it comes up on this blog, be sure to note it; but most of such comfort and aid that we see in the real world is done by the Lynne Stewarts of the world, and I would be quite happy to see her put away in chokey for a very long time.

It comes down to a ratio: what is the acceptable ratio between “false positives” (i.e. people unjustly suspected of being security risks) and “false negatives” (people who should have been suspected, but weren’t)?

Since the cost of false negatives is measured in death, and the cost of false positives is measured in annoyance, I think the ratio should be higher rather than lower. I think most people would find that to be completely understandable (except for those who might like for there to be more death and more terror, of course). That’s why we take off our shoes at the airport. We are all under suspicion, for no reason at all.

If you believe my response to Pournelle is attacking a straw man, please explain to me what Pournelle actually means – that quote is from his blog.

And what is the practical way in RF’s blog? Investigate soldiers (or others?) who make suspicious comments earlier? I point out again that in such a regime, there are any number of commenters on this blog who should be investigated for treason and sedition, or plain dangerous insanity. You who claim to be freedom loving should be especially wary of creating a state apparatus to investigate thought crimes, in order to prevent a vanishingly small set of incidents. I assure you that you will regret ever having thought it a good idea should it come to pass.

The idea that anyone is proposing that everyone with doubts about the war policy should be excluded is what is unknown as a straw man argument and is correctly understood as a logical fallacy. It is the mark of an unserious mind. Please try to keep up.

Richard Fernandez picks up the thread in his usual fashion, with a highly practical way of dealing with the problem.

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/09/dissent-is-the-highest-form-of-patriotism/

One clue is that Hasan listed his nationality as “Palestinian.”

A clue to what? Both of his parents emigrated from the West Bank. What should he have put as his nationality?

the instant he began to show doubts about the legitimacy of the War and an unwillingness to be deployed to participate in it, he ought at the very least to have been stripped of his commission

If we removed every soldier who had doubts about the legitimacy of a war or who was unwilling to be deployed there, we would have a very small military indeed.

*snort* That is possibly one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read this week– and that includes the PTSD suggestion for Hasan.

It’s a bit like saying “I’m not saying that meter maids are like Nazis, but they are both following orders….”

The sheer difference in degree, kind, monitor support, truth-value, obscenity and probably several other things my hands hurt too much to type.

Sad to say, there is too much of that around here at the moment. There has been way too much talk of violence in particular. huxley, you have been trying to call attention to excessive rhetoric for a couple of weeks now, and rightly so.

For example: Gray, your last comment isn’t helpful to the argument and can only be insulting to a lot of people who don’t deserve to be insulted. It is not violent, but it is excessive. You are painting with too broad a brush altogether to change the opinion of anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.

Nevertheless, I think that there is a meaningful difference between the customary partisan invective and personal attacks involving sexual content. logern was well across that line, which is why I am complaining now.

And who am I to complain? Just a reader, with the same right to complain as any other reader.

We need to have some standards of decorum.

Oblio: Not really. Not as far as I can tell. It’s not as bad as the Daily Kos, but this blog has become something of a part-time right-wing fever swamp IMO.

It’s perfectly all right to insult liberals and leftists, in general and specifically, and those who would in any way defend them.

The only time objections occur to such attacks are when the attacks, or seeming attacks, come from the left.

I appreciate your efforts to hold up standards though.