Op-Ed: Worse than death

This week, Maj. Nidal Malek Hasan — the sole suspect in the November 2009 shooting at the Fort Hood military base, a massive bloodbath that left 13 dead and 32 wounded — was arraigned in a military courtroom. The charges: 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 of attempted premeditated murder, for which Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist who was himself paralyzed in the shootout, may face the death penalty.

A capital conviction is rare in military courts, and requires presidential consent. While the Hasan case certainly qualifies as a capital offense (which also requires that the defendant plead “not guilty”), and while the evidence against him is indisputable and overwhelming, the death penalty would be, in this instance, not only an important humanitarian issue, but an enormous judicial and political mistake.

From all indications, the Fort Hood massacre was no ordinary shooting rampage, the random fury of a disgruntled or emotionally disturbed individual who was simply acting out. Hasan, according to the evidence and witness testimony, is a radical Muslim, an American-born soldier of Palestinian heritage who turned against his country to join the cause of Islamist jihad. (“Islamism” refers to political or radical Islam as practiced and promoted by groups like al Qaeda and al Shabaab.) Before the shootings, he allegedly exchanged emails with radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born, Yemen-based cleric affiliated with al Qaeda and known for his YouTube videos that call on American Muslims to kill U.S. citizens and soldiers. (Six months after the massacre at Fort Hood, Awlaki — whom President Obama has declared an “enemy combatant” — called Hasan’s shooting “heroic” and “wonderful.”) Hasan had also, according to witnesses, spoken out against America, and claimed that Sharia, or Islamic law, stood above the Constitution.

As a result, the Fort Hood shooting has been viewed generally as a terrorist act inspired by Islamic extremists, another moment of battle in the Islamist holy war against the West. And like any militant jihadist, Hasan undoubtedly believes that the murders he committed in Allah’s name — he reportedly shouted “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “Allah is great,” as he opened fire — indeed make him a hero, not only in Awlaki’s eyes, but Allah’s. All that stands between him and a throng of virgins in paradise now is death — or rather, according to Islam, death as a consequence of the killings he committed. Indeed, in an email he allegedly sent to Awlaki, Hasan wrote, “I can’t wait to join you” in the afterlife. The U.S. government has yet to release the full text of the email correspondence, despite much urging from the press and civil rights groups.

Moreover, Hasan’s cry of “Allahu akbar” demonstrates to would-be followers his devotion to Allah and his belief in Muhammad as his true prophet; according to Islam, this is the shahadah, one of the five pillars of the faith. In turn, the word “shahid” means both “martyr” and “model.”

Hence as a martyr killed in the process of — or as a result of — his jihad, he becomes that much more a hero in the eyes of those like Awlaki and his followers, a grand example for future young mujahids, or holy warriors, in their war against America and the West. “A martyr,” writes Professor A. Ezzati of the University of Tehran, “is one who dies as a result of someone else’s action against him, which he resists as far as possible.” Arguably, pleading “not guilty” constitutes “resistance” in this case.

Ultimately, then, sentencing Nidal Hasan to death would be tantamount to handing him an award higher than any military recognition ever could provide. Death becomes a completion of his service, his crowning as a martyr for his god. Worse, it would play directly into his hands — and to those of Awlaki, who has called on others to follow Hasan’s example. And as with the killing of Osama bin Laden, it might well lead to retaliatory action by other Muslim radicals living within our borders.

There is another option: Send him off to prison, never to be released. Yes, I know the arguments: Why should we support his life with our tax money? My answer: Because this is our best revenge. How better to take his life than to take away his freedom — abandoning him to live and die as a weak and enfeebled man, to suffer ignominy and helplessness, alone, nameless and forgotten to the last of his excruciating, loathsome days.

Abigail R. Esman is the author, most recently, of “Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West.”

© Scoop Media