More facts are sure to surface about Major Nidal Hasan’s motive to embark on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, his actions leading up to it, and his personal contacts as the government’s investigation continues. However, what we know so far demonstrates that even with the largest surveillance powers in history, our government may have missed warning signs Hasan was about to commit a crime and was unable to prevent a clearly disturbed individual from acting.
This should caution lawmakers who are considering reauthorizing expiring (un)PATRIOT Act era surveillance powers that collecting communications and so-called "intelligence" may not be the best way to stop these kinds of tragic crimes.
Take two recent headlines on Hasan: "Fort Hood Gunman Gave Signals Before His Rampage" and "U.S. Knew of Suspect’s Tie to Radical Cleric." Despite knowing of his contacts to a "radical," government officials missed the warning signs Hasan was about to snap.
Media reports indicate that in the months and weeks leading up to Hasan's horrible crime, there were indications he was suffering. He complained about harassment based on his religion, such as being called "camel jockey" and having his car vandalized with a diaper and sign saying "this is your headdress." He sought legal help to receive an early discharge from the army and was reportedly told it was nearly impossible to get out. He struggled openly about reconciling his religion and his duty as an U.S. military officer. There were red flags before Hasan snapped, and they had nothing to do with terrorist groups.
Indeed, the government had in its grasp links between Hasan and a known terrorist sympathizer. The FBI decided not to further investigate e-mails intercepted between the violence-supporting cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, and Hasan, stating that
"There was no indication that Major Hasan was planning an imminent attack at all, or that he was directed to do anything"
and concluding that
"Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning."
Despite claims by some in Congress - like Sen. Joe Lieberman on Fox News Sunday - that Hasan’s religion makes his crime a terrorist act, investigation officials have maintained that Hasan was acting alone and acting as a result of a combination of factors. It seems the brightest red flags were not about "radical clerics" or al-Qaeda, they were about one individual's personal demons.
In light of the Fort Hood tragedy, we must ask if our national security resources would be better spent investigating reports of discrimination in the military, digging a little deeper when someone requests an early discharge, and paying attention to individuals’ actions, rather than spending time collecting and reading communications that have nothing to do with criminal activity, including terrorism. This is the question Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Lieberman should be asking instead of calling all crimes committed by Muslims "terrorist acts" and using the Fort Hood tragedy as a political football to score support for his homegrown terrorism scare tactics.
The terrible events at Ft. Hood contain an opportunity to reevaluate our national security policies, cease wasting precious resources on surveillance of groups and innocent people in the hopes of finding a criminal, and refocus on what works - fact-based investigations into individual actions.