Pentagon lets nut case loose

**Spooky** · 3rd February 2011 05:01 PM

Some fairly serious allegations are made with regard to the Ft. Hood Shootings / shooter.

Why did the pentagon let this man continue unchecked and leaving these men in charge?

FoxNews.com - Senate Committee Criticizes Several Agencies in Wake of Fort Hood Shooting

**freecell** · 3rd February 2011 05:29 PM

Because if they had they would have been labeled racist and only going after him because he was Muslim. Then if they couldn’t prove intent without any doubt they would have been sued and some would have lost their jobs.

**Blueneck** · 3rd February 2011 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by freecell

Because if they had they would have been labeled racist and only going after him because he was Muslim. Then if they couldn’t prove intent without any doubt they would have been sued and some would have lost their jobs.

You don't think they could've gotten rid of him if they really wanted to? Couldn't they just have arranged to have someone "tell" (as in DADT) on him? I think the military just kicked the problem upstairs in part due to fears like what you described, and in part because they are just as bureaucratic and lazy as the rest of the government.

**Spooky** · 3rd February 2011 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by freecell

Because if they had they would have been labeled racist and only going after him because he was Muslim. Then if they couldn’t prove intent without any doubt they would have been sued and some would have lost their jobs.

So the public welfare was placed at risk because of a matter of supposed embarrassment?

**freecell** · 3rd February 2011 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Spooky

So the public welfare was placed at risk because of a matter of supposed embarrassment?

Most won't lose their jobs over a hunch. It's a sensitive matter.

**freecell** · 3rd February 2011 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Blueneck

You don't think they could've gotten rid of him if they really wanted to? Couldn't they just have arranged to have someone "tell" (as in DADT) on him? I think the military just kicked the problem upstairs in part due to fears like what you described, and in part because they are just as bureaucratic and lazy as the rest of the government.

Yea but tactfully. It could have backfired in their face.

**Blueneck** · 3rd February 2011 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by freecell

Yea but tactfully. It could have backfired in their face.

Actually I think it did.

**Spooky** · 3rd February 2011 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by freecell

Yea but tactfully. It could have backfired in their face.

Instead just a few people died and no pentagon people got their faces red. Sound like a successful ploy.

Those planners deserve a raise and perhaps a vacation with shoestrings, belt and sheet provided with instructions.

**freecell** · 3rd February 2011 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Blueneck

Actually I think it did.

Yes, but first did they have hard evidence? If so I would think they would have acted on it. It must have not been. It’s easy to look back and say LOOK after the fact. While it’s going on a person had better be sure before they take action against a person. 1000 people can say, I’ll kill you, but most likely only one will attempt. Catching that one isn’t easy.

**Blueneck** · 3rd February 2011 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by freecell

Yes, but first did they have hard evidence? If so I would think they would have acted on it. It must have not been. It’s easy to look back and say LOOK after the fact. While it’s going on a person had better be sure before they take action against a person. 1000 people can say, I’ll kill you, but most likely only one will attempt. Catching that one isn’t easy.

I think if this was an elisted person we were talking about they would have found a way to get rid of him. I think officers regularly cover each others asses.

And yes, I agree with you on the death threat thing. Ask any woman who's been stalked by an ex. The issue of prosecuting people for threats is tricky.