Was the Ft. Hood shooting an act of terrorism, and if so, what is the proper punishment?

And a look at ObamaCare with Amy Ridenour, co-author of Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Healthcare.

The Culture & Media Institute’s report on network coverage of Major Nidal Hasan and the Ft. Hood murders continues to gain media attention. On Nov. 14, Fox’s “News Watch” program led off with CMI’s findings.

“The Culture & Media Institute noticed something about the news coverage,” said host John Scott said of the Ft. Hood shooting. “Until President Obama spoke on Tuesday at a memorial service for the victims of the Ft. Hood attacks, 29 percent of evening news reports mentioned that Major Nical Malik Hasan was a Muslim. 93 percent of the stories ignored any terror connection. But after the president hinted at what ABC called ‘Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.”

Scott listed CMI’s other findings: 85 percent of reports didn’t mention the word “terror,” and the three broadcast networks referred to the terror connection just seven times in 48 reports.

The host then turned to syndicated columnist Cal Thomas for comment. “There’s a double standard in the media,” Thomas said. “Back in the 1980s, when the so-called ‘religious right,’ the conservative Christians came up in the political system, the media sent cameras to their churches. They stereotyped little old ladies and men driving pickup trucks. They labeled them ‘ultra-right,’ ‘extreme right,’ ‘fundamentalists’ – they didn’t care about labeling then. But now it’s hands off – no cameras in the mosques, no labeling of Islamic extremists beyond that word: a terrible double standard.

In his first question to Hasan’s attorney, retired Army Colonel John Galligan, Smith wondered: “First things first, you met with Hasan at some point yesterday. Is he coherent?” Galligan replied: “He’s coherent.” He then lamented: “I learned from, actually members of the media, that apparently he was going to be charged yesterday. I was surprised by that and I was saddened by the manner in which it occurred, because I – I received belated notice.”

Smith seized upon that statement: “How unusual is it for a case as important as this one is, for the suspect to be charged with a crime and for his attorney not to be present?” Galligan admitted: “Well, there’s no legal requirement that I have been present when the charges are preferred, under the manual.” He then added: “I was extremely upset to learn that they were going about this important step in the pre-trial procedural process without formally notifying me….my first five minutes with the client were spent almost apologizing for the manner in which it went down.”

After Smith questioned Hasan’s competence, Galligan explained: “…he understands who I am, we can talk, he knows what time it is. But, again, I was only there for an hour and could I tell at the end of that one hour session I was kind of pushing the limits in terms of my ability to keep him fresh and alert in a discussion with me. His medical condition is extremely serious.”

Smith first spoke with Galligan on Tuesday, and was similarly concerned with Hasan’s mental state: “Is he coherent?….Does he know what he is alleged to have done?” At that time Smith also asked Galligan: “You said yesterday you don’t think the Major can get a fair trial. Why not?” Galligan replied: “Well, I don’t know if I said that he can’t get a fair – I – I think that would be difficult to achieve at Ft. Hood given the – the national media attention that’s been focused on the Ft. Hood community.”

Smith went so far as to cite a terrorist who praised Hasan’s actions:

Right. The – the military feels like the Major acted alone, that’s why this is going to be a military trial. Yet at the same time, he – we know now that he has exchanged these many messages with this radical cleric named Anwar Al-Awlaki. Awlaki said over the last couple of days, he called Major Hasan a hero: "He’s a man of conscious who could not bear living a contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an Army that is fighting against his own people." Are you satisfied that Major Hasan acted by himself?

Smith later suggested a possible legal strategy to Galligan: “Is it possible the government failed to defuse a ticking time bomb and might that end up being part of your defense?”

Here is a full transcript of the Friday segment:

7:07AM

HARRY SMITH: One week after the Ft. Hood massacre, the suspect, Major Nidal Hasan, has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder as he lay in his hospital bed. Joining us from Ft. Hood, Texas is Colonel John Galligan, a retired Army officer who is Hasan’s civilian attorney. Good morning, Colonel.

GALLIGAN: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Facing the Death Penalty; Hasan’s Atty. Speaks Out On Murder Charges]  

SMITH: First things first, you met with Hasan at some point yesterday. Is he coherent?

JOHN GALLIGAN: He’s coherent and I – you’re correct, I did meet with him. I was totally surprised to learn that there was going to be a major press release or a meeting with the disclosure by PAO officials. When I queried about that, I wasn’t too sure what time it was going to occur, what it was going to be about. But I learned from, actually members of the media, that apparently he was going to be charged yesterday. I was surprised by that and I was saddened by the manner in which it occurred, because I – I received belated notice.

SMITH: Here’s the important question. How unusual is it for a case as important as this one is, for the suspect to be charged with a crime and for his attorney not to be present?

GALLIGAN: Well, there’s no legal requirement that I have been present when the charges are preferred, under the manual. However, given, as you’ve noted, the high profile nature of the case, given his location and status, still in an ICU unit, and described by me, based on the last time I saw him, in a medical condition that I would describe as guarded, I was extremely upset to learn that they were going about this important step in the pre-trial procedural process without formally notifying me. And by that I mean ensuring that I knew that it was going to be done, coordinating it in advance. That would have permitted me to be down there. In all honesty, my first five
minutes with the client were spent almost apologizing for the manner in which it went down.

SMITH: Right, let me-

GALLIGAN: This that wasn’t, I don’t think, my responsibility, but that’s what happened.

SMITH: Right. Let me ask you this. Now that you’ve had the opportunity to speak with him a couple of times, do you think – and this is not from a scientific or even legal standpoint, but just as you’ve been able to speak with him, do you think he’s competent to stand trial?

GALLIGAN: Well, his competence, and that is not mental responsibility or culpability for any charged offenses, but his competence, his ability to relate with me, he understands who I am, we can talk, he knows what time it is. But, again, I was only there for an hour and could I tell at the end of that one hour session I was kind of pushing the limits in terms of my ability to keep him fresh and alert in a discussion with me. His medical condition is extremely serious.

SMITH: Colonel Galligan, thank you very much for your time this morning.

GALLIGAN: You’re welcome, sir. Thank you.

SMITH: You bet.

It’s one thing to avoid the "terrorist" label when reporting on Ft. Hood suspect Major Nidal Hasan. It’s quite another to say that those who do use it are making a political calculation to "paint the Democrats as soft terror." Yet that’s what MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow insisted on her Nov. 11 broadcast.

Maddow launched into a minute-and-a-half soliloquy on why it is bad for the Democratic Party when commentators label Hasan a "terrorist." She even attempted to make the case on Hasan’s behalf against a terrorism label. Who needs a legal team when you have friends like Maddow and Chris Matthews, who fretted over the legality of Hasan’s al Qaeda communications?

"Remember this one? Yes, it is the old ‘paint the Democrats as soft on terror’ routine," Maddow said. "But in order to play that politicizing terrorism, anti-Democratic greatest hits, the Fort Hood case has to be terrorism. Now, regardless of how you feel about the political issue of politicizing terrorism, it’s worth asking was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It’s not just a political question. It’s not just a judgment call. It’s not just a matter of taste. It’s a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer."

Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and, according to Maddow, because those charges don’t indicate terrorism, the terrorism characterization should be avoided.

"And the charges today didn’t include anything related to terrorism," Maddow said. "Terrorism is not just conceptual political jargon. It’s a legal term and it has interestingly changed over the past few years. In order for something to be legally considered terrorism, do you have to be taking instructions from a terrorist group? Do you have to have some sort of clear political motive behind the violence? Is it about the way that you commit the crime, what sort of weapons that you use in doing? Is it about how many people that you kill in your crime? Is it about the specific type of people you target, whether they’re civilian or military?"

However, as Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Command, explained, these charges are not set in stone and could change, which could altogether ruin Maddow’s argument against branding Hasan a terrorist. But that wasn’t stopping Maddow from sanctimoniously contending that using the word terrorism is nothing more than a strategic political maneuver and that it is an indictment of those making them, not the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding 29.

"If you’re interested in more than just making political hay out of the Fort Hood case, these are the sort of legitimate questions you would want to ask before labeling this or any case an instance of terrorism," Maddow said. "Those who are calling this terrorism or making their case in large part because Maj. Hasan is a Muslim and because he’s alleged to have said ‘God is great’ before the shootings. And while it might make for exciting politics to argue murders by committed religious Muslims are presumptively terrorist acts, those exciting political allegations actually say a lot more about the people making them than they do about the real character of the tragedy at Fort Hood and how we, as a country, should respond to it."

On Nov. 12, Bill O’Reilly led off “The O’Reilly Factor” by framing his “Talking Points” segment around a report from the Culture & Media Institute on the biased network coverage of the Ft. Hood Massacre.

“A new study, by the Culture and Media Institute, a conservative group, says the following: 85 percent of network evening news stories on Ft. Hood did not mention the word ‘terror,’ O’Reilly said. “In fact, in 48 reports, ABC, CBS and NBC referenced terrorism just seven times. Only 29 percent of the evening news reports even mentioned Major Hasan was a Muslim. Unbelievable. Of those mentions, 50 percent defended Islam. And before the president’s speech at Ft. Hood, 93 percent of the network evening news stories ignored any discussion about a terror connection. But after the president said that extremist views were involved, all three networks began to report a possible connection.”

“So you can see that apparently the American media’s still under the sway of the White House,” O’Reilly concluded, “and not accurately portraying things as they really are.”

CMI studied the evening news reporting of the three networks from Nov. 5, the day of the shooting, to Nov. 10, the day of the memorial service at which President Obama made what ABC’s Jake Tapper called “wa tacit acknowledgment of the Islamic extremist views investigators say were held by [Hasan].”

Meanwhile, Obama has appointed a federal judge with ties to – guess what – ACORN!

Plus, Gordon reads Twas the Night Before a Liberal Christmas.

And in the wake of the Ft. Hood shooting, former presidential candidate Gary Bauer tells The G-Man political correctness is one of our biggest national security threats.