November 22, 2009 12:38 PM

Where Were the Alarms on Hasan?

By
Bob Schieffer
(CBS)  In history's Hall of Infamy, Maj. Nadil Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, has earned a special place, even among the mass killers.

The Washington Post's Colby King made the point: This man didn't shoot people at random, nor did he seem to have a grudge against any particular person.

No, he shot people he had been sent to help, which must be the worst of all crimes.

It is as if a teacher shot at students, or a doctor strangled patients.

Now the investigation and the debate have begun. Was he a religious extremist, or crazy, or a little bit of both?

As King noted, he had enough sense to keep quiet until he could hire a lawyer, and the answers to those questions will be interesting to know.

But the obvious questions remain the more important ones: Why didn't someone notice him before 13 people died?

I have listened carefully all week as various military and government spokesmen have counseled we can not rush to judgment, but there were just too many red flags to ignore - Internet postings, communications with known terrorists, low performance ratings.

Why did they not set off alarms?

Whatever the shooter's motives, whatever demons drove him, I find myself in the same place I was at the beginning of all this: This man should not have been shuffled off to Fort Hood. This heinous crime should not have happened.

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment
by noloyalisti November 16, 2009 1:14 PM EST
When you have a completely dysfunctional military (from the top down), that is doing terrorist acts all over the world on behalf of the big corporations, this kind of thing will happen.
Reply to this comment
by mpourdadash November 16, 2009 12:32 PM EST
It,s rather wiered knowing that a devoted moslem who used to attened that radical jihadi cleric,s seremons,and was e-mailing him be allowed to have such a critical job in U.S Army!!This massacare could have easily been prevented if the concerned agencies did their job properly.
Reply to this comment
by revlin1 November 16, 2009 12:07 PM EST
Time for America to face up to the truth here. On a military base, in our public schools, at our town councils ....Whenever you are dealing with MUSLIMS; for some reason everyone thinks you have to put on the "kid gloves" and give them special treatment. I can't tell you how many times in our state; I have had to console a public school student because he/she was "bullied" or felt inferior when Muslims come to town ...WHY? Because he/she watches the special treatment and "off limits" given to those special immersion students..None of which is afforded to them ever...And what happens: those students just step back and let the VICTIMIZERS victimize everyone else. How bout the local iman (no even wearing robes in our town, but in charge of the multi cultural center....) going down to a chain of locally owned variety stores and "talk to management" to get a couple of African Muslim students "off the hook" for shoplifting because it would shame their families and the Muslim community....YUP; this is true and does Christian store management do this as requested? SURE THEY DO...why? Pressure from the local Muslim leadership in said small town or larger city or anywhere now in USA. Who loses? AMERICA DOES. Why? These people are bringing THEIR CULTURE AND WAY OF LIFE AND NOT IMMERSING INTO OURS BUT ASKING US TO CHANGE TO ACCOMODATE THEM....Does anyone get it yet? If you don't go along with the "plan"...well, a local govt might LOSE federal funds (especially under Obamaniac) AND, public schools won't get that extra monies and they won't look "politically correct"...and well, the military: they MUST ACCEPT ALL PEOPLE, FAITHS, COLORS AND CREEDS. It's what America does....So, do others take advantage? OF COURSE THEY DO and now with Saudia Arabia owning major shares in all networks and AP and newspapers in America; what do we THINK journalists are doing? You got it...pushing politically correct columns and agenda....RIGHTS OF AMERICANS...GONE AND OUT THE WINDOW.
THE VICTIMS are now the VICTIMIZERS when it comes to Islam. Everytime.
Reply to this comment
by 50BMS13 November 16, 2009 1:30 PM EST
revlin1
BEST POST I'VE READ TODAY! keep it up!
by 50BMS13 November 16, 2009 1:48 AM EST
Where were the alarms on Hasan?

Bumper sticker>>>>>>ALLAH IS LOVE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED FLAG
Going to mosque>>>>>>7 DAYS/WEEK>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED FLAG
Protested war on muslims>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED FLAG
Wore traditional garb to base>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED FLAG
Said suicide bombing same as falling on grenade> RED FLAG
Reply to this comment
by dontknowitall November 16, 2009 12:22 AM EST
Where were the alarms? Everyone was to involved minding their own business. Didn't want to get involved. Hear no evil See no evil Speak no evil. Think about it. Mess up their career over a waste like that? Whistle blowers get less than a minute of fame and then have to find an entry level job without benefits. Nobody wants them everybody avoids them.
Reply to this comment
by 2012EOD November 15, 2009 6:01 PM EST
If the communications were done off base, using a private internet or phone connection, then the responsiblity is on Homeland Security. Now, who runs homeland security?

Now, some of this was under Bush, but not for the last 10 months folks. Someone dropped the ball, and now 13 are dead.
Reply to this comment
by SusanStoHelit November 16, 2009 3:23 AM EST
Homeland security reviewed his contacts, his communications, and found nothing to worry about. And sorry - but this conclusion and review happened under Bush - so you don't get to blame others for it.

However - there's every chance that those communications were innocent - about his views of Islam (since he was talking with an Imam, not a known terrorist, but a suspected terrorist sympathizer). In any case, for whatever reason we do not now know, they listened in, and decided it was nothing to worry about. Someday we'll find out why.
by riptide213 November 15, 2009 4:19 PM EST
Per Army Regulation 380-67, the Department of the Army Personnel Security Program.

A US Secret clearance is a condition of initial appointment as and required for commissioned officers in our military.

Exceptions for certain commissioned officers are another accident waiting to happen.

Strict requirements for entrance security investigations are rigidly adhered to EXCEPT for health professionals, chaplains, and attorneys who may be commissioned prior to completion of a security investigation.

This weak policy loophole in US military background security process is a potential slip under the RADAR vulnerability risk that needs to be fixed. Easy fix allow no exceptions.

With hindsight could robust adherence to current personnel security procedures for protection of sensitive national information focused in on this escalating, one person rebellion?

Did Commander, US Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility (CCF), as sole authority for granting, denying and revoking security clearances of military employees of the Department of the Army become aware of any derogatory information on this officer?

CCF notified of ongoing FBI or Defense Criminal Investigative Service investigations?

CCF notified of any concerns of fellow students or colleagues?

Were any proactive steps taken by CCF to suspend, deny, or revoke this officers security clearance eligibility until investigations were complete?

Could commanders, supervisors, or security managers at all levels following established protocols help identify or focus scrutiny on low level threats or hazards in this case before concerns reached dynamic meltdown?


This US field grade officer was in a sensitive position of trust treating US warriors, yet it appears he was known to espouse direct or indirect leanings toward our enemys ethos. A noticeably overt ripened target for insider threat recruitment to spy or instigator of heinous deeds through self motivation, malicious outside influence, or both.

Was a Security Information File or SIF ever established to flag anything, just in case?

Was this practitioner administratively removed from direct contact duties to prevent him from treating vulnerable war wounded soldiers during the official investigations?

An in depth investigation to refine all risk factor reviews is urgently required. Why?

If our national security agencies cannot coordinate, detect, follow established regulations and prevent this type of developing radical threat from within our military with all control measures and criteria in place to become or remain a serving officer just how can we expect to preempt threats from less scrutinized sectors or individuals in society?

CINC, SecDef, every IG, United States Congress, or flag waving patriot with any allusion of honor and integrity needs to be all over this one because our system clearly and shamefully failed abysmally.
Reply to this comment
by AOCGUY November 16, 2009 1:14 PM EST
As a health care professional MAJ Hasan would most likely only need a Secret clearance at most which requires only a NAC (essentially a background check to see if he had ever been convicted of any crimes).
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook