[NOTE: This post has been UPDATED]
James Alan Fox and Jack Levin, criminologists at Boston’s Northeastern University, argue in USA Today that the Fort Hood “tragedy” is “typical workplace violence.”
…. In many respects the Fort Hood massacre stands as a textbook case of workplace murder, even though a military base would seem to be an unusual location. Such a crime would seem more likely to occur inside an office building, such as in Friday’s shooting spree in Orlando. Despite its unique function, Fort Hood is indeed a workplace, the U.S. Army an employer, and Hasan a disgruntled worker attempting to avenge perceived unfair treatment on the job….
According to Fox and Levin, the “appearances” in this case — “Nidal Malik Hasan’s Palestinian descent, his Muslim affiliation, his Middle Eastern-style clothing, and reports of his having shouted out ‘Allahu Akbar’ … before allegedly gunning down dozens of soldiers” — are “deceiving,” even though, “superficially,” they make “the Fort Hood rampage look[] like terrorism.” Moreover, they write,
calling the Fort Hood ambush an act of terrorism would only compound the tragedy by reinforcing the kind of intolerance toward American Muslims that appears to have contributed to Hasan’s despair.
Generously, they do allow that “[i]n today’s political climate, it is easy to understand why many observers would uncritically describe Hasan as a terrorist.”
Thanks.
Let us not pause here to refute Fox’s and Levin’s view that the evidence for terrorism is superficial and deceptive and instead take seriously their notion that this was simply an example of workplace violence by a disgruntled employee. But if that is the case (and leaving aside the issue of sovereign immunity), can’t a strong argument be made that the Army is liable for the misconduct of its “employee”?
There are several theories under which the liability of Hasan’s “employer” could be established, especially given all the evidence that has come out to date (with more probably in the wings) of the notice it had that Hasan was a threatening risk. Here’s just one:
Employees have been successful in suits that allege that employers were negligent in either hiring or retaining another employee who, subsequent to being hired, commits a violent act….
Negligent retention occurs when an employer becomes aware, or should become aware, of an employee’s unsuitability, yet fails to take any action….
UPDATE [12 November]
J. Robert Smith writes today on Pajamas Media that
while the army brass bears a share of the responsibility for Hasan’s terrorism, having the military bear a disproportionate share of the criticism is both unfair and misguided….
The Constitution makes the military subordinate to civilian command. That’s more than just form, thank goodness. The military obeys the president and follows the laws established by Congress. The Founders wanted the military subordinate to civilian command, for obvious reasons.
Good point. If one insists on viewing this “incomprehensible” attack as just another example of workplace violence, then the finger of guilt does point to the “employer,” the U.S. Army.
Of course, as almost everyone can see (except perhaps the president, a few criminologists, and our moral instructors in the mainstream media), Fort Hood is not a typical “workplace”; the Army is not primarily an “employer,” and Maj. Hasan is not your typical “nut case” employee, as Newsweek’s Evan Thomas seems to think.
