Article

2009-11-10 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2009-11-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Accused mass murderer Hasan and radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki exchanged 10 to 20 "communications," sources said. Hasan caught the FBI's eye in December 2008 as part of another investigation by the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-11-10 02:17|| 2009-11-10 02:17|| Front Page Top

#2 This is not a "man caused disaster."

Posted by gorb 2009-11-10 03:31|| 2009-11-10 03:31|| Front Page Top

#3 This is not a "man caused disaster."

No, but it is certainly enabled by man.

Posted by gorb 2009-11-10 03:32|| 2009-11-10 03:32|| Front Page Top

#4 Hasan promotion from Captain to Major apparently occurred after he had already begun spouting Jihadic slogans at well attended conferences, after he had 'reached out' to Jihad imans, etc.

Posted by lord garth 2009-11-10 06:48|| 2009-11-10 06:48|| Front Page Top

#5 Doc, nurses, padres, and lawyers are techies and hold their rank because of their specialty, they are not line officer with similar command authority. I don't ever recall seeing a single doc as a lieutenant. Most are put on the rolls as captains to start. Each of the specialties have a separate promotion board from the line officers. The first real promotion board they face usually involves a review of the individual's Dept of the Army record jacket and any communication directed to the board by the individual or others. Each board member usually has less than 2 minutes to review the record before recommending approval or disapproval. In the case of the initial promotion, unless there is something adverse in the records, the individual will automatically be selected for promotion. Promotion boards are not standing organizations, but are composed of 'random' members sent for temporary duty of anywhere from a week to a month to carry out the function and then returned to their normal duty station. The question is why adverse information was withheld from the record and from the board. Or if it wasn't, why did the board ignore it. It's probably the former than the latter, as the board usually will use any excuse to drop someone from consideration unless the 'directions to the board' would say otherwise. During the period of equal opportunity, boards were 'directed' to relook at records to make sure certain quotas were met.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-11-10 08:58|| 2009-11-10 08:58|| Front Page Top

#6 It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack. . . .

And it's a sad day in this country when a young Army wife is overheard to say that she's glad her husband is in war-torn Iraq instead of home with his family.

Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-11-10 10:06|| 2009-11-10 10:06|| Front Page Top

#7 Nidal Hasan stated: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

That being said it follows that Islam is the culture of death?

Posted by JohnQC 2009-11-10 15:30|| 2009-11-10 15:30|| Front Page Top

#8 Excellent summary P2k, and from the detail it appears you have some familiarity with the process and details, but a few questions about your closing comments.

Why do you lean to the withheld info aspect? Couldn't this be a case of the latter - namely, excessive deference to cultural inclusion at this level (i.e. how many Islamic psychiatrists, let alone MDs, are in the military?)

Alternately, if the board didn't have the background, who or what withheld it? Dumb question - isn't this a military intelligence issue, in place of what would be FBI background checks - or does this stage not even get to that level of attention, or does the system just not work - i.e. background checks done but not shared with promotion boards?

Regardless of the POTUS not jumping to conclusions, can we conclude anything other than a lethal failure here, and simply get on with uncovering the ugly causes? If not, hound the cover up.

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2009-11-10 16:20|| 2009-11-10 16:20|| Front Page Top

#9 Let me see if I can answer your questions.

On withholding information. All military personnel get evaluation reports, usually once a year or upon change of rater unless there are extenuating circumstances. That would be a place for his supervisors to put comments on the performance. However, supervisors are notorious to avoid putting comments in that would be challenged and subject to review because of the nature of the comments. It's [expletive deleted] careerists who want everything to appear OK rather than go through the process of dealing with the truth. One indication of that would be a rehabilitative transfer of the individual. Rather than kicking out a service member for disruptive behavior, one option is to transfer the problem child to another unit to determine whether it was a clash of personalities or a bad apple. It also passes the elimination process on to someone else.* Unfortunately, when you transfer said individual across country, its not like the new commander can waltz over to the old unit and find out what the issues are, but are all too often blindsided when the do-do hits the fan.

As to MI having input to promotion boards, it normally doesn't. The clearing process happens when the person is brought on to the rolls. In depth clearing doesn't occur till the individual requires a higher level security clearance for performance of a specific duty. The shooter probably didn't require anything higher than Secret, which is far less than TS. What MI can do is 'flag' the individual's record which means its pulled and separated from other records. Individuals who are flagged can not have their records submitted before boards and may not be considered for any 'positive' considerations till the flag is resolved. In cases where the individual is cleared, he/she is immediately granted reviews on any boards or selections he/she would have been consider in the absence of the flag [though if it effects pay, he/she has to apply to the Military Board of Corrections for retroactive pay].

Now the question is who had and when did they have information that should have triggered the flag.

* The laws and regulations of decommissioning an officer are challenging. Once you commission the poor creature, the Department is loath to have to decommission it. All appeals and processes on which the decommissioning is based upon must be completed first. Then it literally takes/took the signature of the Secretary to execute.

This is not to be confused with lawful separation as the result of being passed over a number of times for promotion. Which gets to another issue of passing the bad potato hoping that they have enough time for that to occur rather than take action to execute a separation now.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-11-10 19:08|| 2009-11-10 19:08|| Front Page Top

23:18 Frank G
23:06 DMFD
22:56 hammerhead
22:52 hammerhead
22:50 hammerhead
22:41 SteveS
22:40 SteveS
22:39 DMFD
22:35 SteveS
22:25 SteveS
22:01 Mike N.
22:01 lord garth
21:46 Skunky Glins****
21:45 CrazyFool
21:40 Pappy
21:38 Frank G
21:27 Bodyguard
21:27 Broadhead6
21:26 Broadhead6
21:21 Frank G
21:21 Broadhead6
21:20 Frank G
21:09 Rambler in Virginia
20:58 Parabellum