Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • If Major Hasan had been Gay, would he still be in the US Army?

    Posted by Trent Telenko on November 9th, 2009 (All posts by )

    Had Major Hasan made as much public about having gay lovers as he did about being an Islamist, would he have been discharged from the US Army before the recent FT Hood shooting?

    If the US Army has a “watch list for gays,” then why doesn’t it have one for potential uniformed Islamists, to prevent terrorist attacks or “Sudden Jihadi Syndrome?”

    This particular question has been all over conservative web sites and talk radio (The Glenn Beck show for one) this morning.

    After all, TIME magazine reports 2/3 of Muslims enlisting in the US Military are resident aliens. A “Uniformed Islamist Watch List” would seem a basic counter-intelligence security precaution.

    If the speculation stemming from British newspapers is true, the US Army seems to have known enough to move Major Hasan from Walter Reed hospital to FT Hood to keep him from stalking the Israeli Ambassador.

    I would lay in a supply of microwave popcorn to see Senator Joe Lieberman ask Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey Jr. the questions of “What did the Army know, and when did they know it?” and “How does removing possible Islamists in the ranks differ from ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ procedures to remove suspected Gay soldiers?,” in front of the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee, under oath.


    6 Responses to “If Major Hasan had been Gay, would he still be in the US Army?”

    1. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Casey seems to have been wrong about every issue that came up during his terms as Chief of Staff and as CG of MNF in Iraq where he opposed the surge. I wonder how long before he runs for office as a Democrat ?

    2. Hassan Zandy Says:

      What strange logic! If a guy is gay and says nothing, the army does nothing unless it finds out. If a Muslim is not a jihadist till he does a jihad thing, the army does nothing. Either they refuse to enlist Muslims–we use them for translators etc–or they get Muslims who may at a later time for various reasons become extremists.

      In fact if you take the time to read up on the latest news you will discover

      that our intel services did get suspicious of him, monitored him and did not–how different from 9/11?–share their information

    3. Jonathan Says:

      Alan Sullivan wrote a post a few days ago that I think summarizes well the issues raised by Hasan’s attack.

    4. J. Scott Says:

      Mr. Kennedy, I’m with you; given Casey’s track record and the “diversity” interview over the weekend, why is this man in a place of authority?

    5. Trent Telenko Says:


      Major Hasan was a flaming, very public Islamist.

      If he were a Fundamentalist Christian evangelizing as he did, the Army would have disciplined him.

      If he were as publicly Gay, they would have discharged him.

      Instead, in the name of “Diversity,” they placed Major Hasan on a Homeland Security Agency chaired joint committee and put him at a speech with the Israeli Ambassador.

      If anyone had been both paying attention and were willing to act, this shooting could easily have been prevented.

      This is a UCMJ Articles violation list Major Hasan is subject to, based on an e-mail from a US Army officer I correspond with:

      80 attempts
      83. Fraudulent enlistment appointment or separation
      92. Failure to obey order or EEG
      104. Aiding the enemy
      107. False official statement
      116. Riot/breach of peace
      117. Provoking speech or gestures
      118. Miser
      119a. Death of unborn child
      124. Maiming
      128. Assault
      133. Conduct unbecoming.
      134. Assault, disloyal statements, false swearing, discharging firearm, homicide, & carrying a concealed weapon

      Some of these articles — 92, 104, 107, 117, & 133 at a minimum — could have been charged prior to shooting, but were not.

    6. Fred Says:

      How many living, breathing human beings must be sacrificed at the alter of diversity? The right to diversity should end when it openly threatens to interfere with the right of others to live.

      “our intel services did get suspicious of him, monitored him and did not–how different from 9/11?–share their information” Thank you Mr. Zandy. I’ve been trying to say this all day.