Major Hasan’s Smooth Ascension

Today’s New York Times has an editorial entitled Major Hasan’s Smooth Ascension which for the most part I can stand in agreeance. However there is one telling sentence which gives me pause.  Something very wrong has happened at the New York Times.  Here is the sentence excerpted from the piece:

“The Hasan report raises other intriguing questions, including why he kept his security clearance after openly criticizing the military’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan as anti-Muslim.” 

So let me get this straight.  The NYTimes believes that an American soldier expressing his opinion openly, no matter how much the Times or the Army disagrees with that opinion, means he should lose his security clearance?  Do I have this right?

If I do have this right the Times needs to seek a new editor.  The one that wrote this article has no understanding of basic American rights under the Constitution.

If I understand correctly that the Times editorial board is saying that an American soldier with an upopular opinion, and one that goes counter to official U.S. policy, openly expresses to his superiors his misgivings about U.S. policy, he must have his clearance pulled then the Times has clearly misunderstood the rights of free speech, even in the Service.

Just because you have an American uniform on your back does not mean you have marbles in your head.

Regadless of what Major Hassan did or did not do, regardless of how his opinion runs counter to official U.S. policy, he certainly has a right as an Arab/Muslim American to point out inconsistencies in U.S. foreign policy to anyone who will listen.  That is his basic right of free speech as an American.

What has happened to the New York Times?  For what reason has it taken this extreme right-turn in the last two or three months?

This fine old American institution, this foundational U.S. newspaper, has signed a pact with the Devil.  Somebody call Pat Robertson, he’s got a job to do.  The Times needs ministerial help.