So, Would Osama Bin Ladin Qualify As A Terrorist For The FBI?

Jillian Bandes | November 10, 2009 9:52 AM

FBI investigators had assessed the Ft. Hood killer, Maj. Nidal Hasan one year before he went on his rampage, and had concluded he did not pose a threat. Here's why:

Military officials were made aware of communications between Hasan and al-Awlaki [who advocated for Muslims to commit violence against American troops!], but because the messages did not advocate or threaten violence, civilian law enforcement authorities could not take the matter further, the officials said. The terrorism task force concluded Hasan was not involved in terrorist planning.

Officials said the content of those messages was "consistent with the subject matter of his research," part of which involved post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from U.S. combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In what world does a U.S. soldier's communication with an anti-American jihadist qualify as a psychological trauma, rather than an explicit belief in political ideology that threatens our national security? !

This discredits the professions of psychology and psychiatry (which don't need any more detractors). This is a huge embarrassment to both American security forces at home and abroad.

But far, far more importantly, unless a major overhaul of our internal psychological standards is conducted, more men and women in our military forces and elsewhere will suffer the same fate as those heroes who died last week.

I wouldn't be surprised if this news actually deterred people from joining the military. If the institutions designed to make America more secure are concerned with inane psychological standards more than they are with keeping their own people safe, why are they deserving of our young men and women's time, faith, and service?