GIGOT: I assume you did not agree with the appellant court's decision.
RABINOWITZ: That is correct. It is only the last in a long line of very strange treatments of Major Hasan, who was in his career pushed ahead despite the fact that anybody else would have been thrown out of medical school, to the moment when they declared at the Department of Defense that, after the shooting, this was work place violence. To see this latest installment now is just one long line. It should remind us, all of it, of all of our problems with Libya, and with the false stories of what that was about, the attempt to immerse us in political correctness, as this court's decision did. Decision.
GIGOT: But what about the issue of his religious rights, which is the essence of his claim here, that, in fact, it violates his religion to make him shave his beard?
RABINOWITZ: Let me tell you that, some years ago, a rabbi was told he could not wear a yarmulke on a base. And that went before the high court. And still, that court was reversed, which had given him permission.
No, you cannot wear, against Army regulations, anything like that.
GIGOT: So, this is going overboard in order to --
RABINOWITZ: Overboard, indeed.
GIGOT: -- to appease, in essence, a political correctness about the Muslim faith?
RABINOWITZ: This was civilian judges on this court. You know, these are not Army judges who made this decision.
Yes, that's correct. And this is the thing that no one dare speak its name. The same long line.
If I could just to leave this spot to show the brink of insanity over which we hover. General Casey immediately after the shooting announced --
GIGOT: Secretary of the Army.
RABINOWITZ: Secretary --
GIGOT: Not secretary of the Army, but --
RABINOWITZ: Secretary --
GIGOT: -- in charge of the army. Chief of staff for the Army.
RABINOWITZ: The chief of staff. He said, this was a tragedy, of course, but the greater tragedy would be if we should have our diversity taken away or undone by this event. And you look at that, it sounds OK for a second, and then you realize, what is he saying? Thirteen people killed and this was most important?
HENNINGER: Well --
GIGOT: Let's get to the issue of this work place violence versus an act of terrorism. The victims and their families are saying it's obviously an act of terrorism, but the Pentagon won't define it as such.
HENNINGER: Well, I suspect they don't want to define is as such because they don't want to set the precedent. I think, in this case, since it happened on a military base, and most of the individuals who were killed were members of the military, that you could say that, in that, these are the ones who are supposed to protect us from terrorism --
HENNINGER: -- that they deserve compensation. The idea that anybody who is involved in a terrorist act in the United States and dies deserves compensation, I think that compensation would be going a little bit too far.
GIGOT: And that's what comes with the definition of an act of terrorism.
GIGOT: So this may be one motive. But you would argue that it's actually --
RABINOWITZ: Well, I would argue that everybody who is shot doesn't have the instance of having the perpetrator shout Allahu Akbar in the face of all reason. And then it's called workplace violence?
STEPHENS: I mean, this is the sign of a kind of civilizational dysfunction. Whether it's terrorism or Jihadism -- as I understand, terrorism is something that takes place against civilians. These were soldiers, OK? It was a jihadi act. It becomes a question - this question arises really because it's a matter of compensation. Who gets what for what particular kinds of violence defined in the regulatory structure we have.
The second issue is the ability of the Army to deal with this specific jihadi threat. In 2000, police in London discovered a document that said jihadis are going to play these games with courts. And guess what? They're succeeding.
GIGOT: All right, thank you all.
We have to take one more break. When we come back, "Hits and Misses" of the week.
GIGOT: Time now for "Hits and Misses" of the week.
Kim, first to you.
STRASSEL: A miss to Bob Costas who used Kansas City Chiefs linebacker, Jovan Belchers murder of his girlfriend and suicide as an excuse to go a rant about handguns on NBC "Sunday Night Football." The problem here isn't just what Costas said, which is the usual nonsense about gun violence, but the fact that he said it at all. Americans are beat over the head daily with political fights over tax cliffs, taxes, spending, elections. We turn into football precisely for escape and so we do not have to hear anybody's political opinions. So do us a favor, Bob, and stick to sports.