Sources: Pentagon worker investigated Hasan last year, found nothing amiss

posted at 6:17 pm on November 10, 2009 by Allahpundit

I think this is new information, but honestly, the sheer volume of missed red flags has led me to lose track. We already knew that the FBI shrugged off Hasan’s e-mails to jihadbot preacher Aulaqi, but did we know that a Pentagon investigator operating as part of the joint terrorism task force did the same thing?

If we didn’t, we do now.

Two officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case on the record said the Washington-based joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI was notified of communications between Hasan and a radical imam overseas, and the information was turned over to a Defense Criminal Investigative Service employee assigned to the task force.

That worker wrote up an assessment of Hasan after reviewing the Army major’s personnel file and the communications. The assessment concluded Hasan did not merit further investigation, in large part because his communications with the imam were centered on a research paper he was writing at the time, and the investigator had concluded Hasan was in fact working on such a paper, the officials said…

Within hours after the role of the defense investigator on the task force was disclosed, a senior defense official said “based on what we know now, neither the U.S. Army nor any other organization within the Department of Defense knew of Maj. Hasan’s contacts with any Muslim extremists.”

In other words, because the JTTF found nothing of concern, the information about Aulaqi was never shared with the military. Here’s a krazy kwestion for you: Supposedly, the e-mails between Hasan and Aulaqi dealt with simple religious matters, in which case, why wasn’t Hasan ever so much as notified that his correspondence had turned up in JTTF surveillance? If their read on him at the time was that he was harmless and merely seeking spiritual guidance, why wouldn’t they pull him aside and ask if he happened to know that his new mentor was wanted for terrorism? If he answered yes, there’s another giant red flag right there; if he answered no, then he’s been placed on notice and they could watch to see if he tried to contact Aulaqi again notwithstanding. Either way, why not probe him a little to see if their suspicions that he was innocent were well founded? Or is the answer to that question too obvious to even ask?

Mueller has now ordered an FBI inquiry into the case of the missing red flags, you’ll be pleased to know. Meanwhile, here’s a snippet from The One’s interview with Tapper last night in which he speculates that Hasan might simply have “cracked” while emphasizing that he’s withholding judgment. Nixon once got into trouble by commenting on Charles Manson’s guilt while the trial was still going on so doubtless part of this answer is due to Obama not wanting to prejudice the case by embracing a theory of the crime. Although even so, a simple “no comment” would have gone a long way, wouldn’t it? Exit question: How long, pray tell, did it take Hasan to “crack” per The One’s theory? Two years? Click the image to watch.

Update: One further thought. For all the warranted grief the feds are getting for not catching the warning signs and discharging him, what exactly was the plan if they did discharge him? He’s a possible terrorist threat, so … they’re going to kick him off the base and leave him to mingle in the general civilian population? The bigger issue here is what to do about guys whom you have strong reason to suspect will do something crazy but who haven’t done anything illegal (yet). In the case of Najibullah Zazi, that’s easy: You know he’s part of a cell, you know he’s been to the training camps, so you surveil him constantly and eventually try to take down the whole network. With a lone-wolf type like Hasan, it’s harder. Without any links to anyone else suggesting he might be ready to go off, he’s potentially a dead-end lead for years. I don’t know what the answer is.

o-cracked


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.

tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…

Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Perfect!

lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.

bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM

If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!

SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)

He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.

Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2