Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Over the decades, the U.S. Congress has come to see itself as the arbiter of all issues, whether congressional hearings are a proper forum or not. For instance, what business exactly did Congress have investigating professional baseball? So far as I know, it’s not a federally-regulated industry. What public good was served, and if there was any, was it worth what the hearings cost?

One could argue that, because many steroids are considered controlled substances, there is a need for congressional oversight. But one could also point out that they are controlled substances because Congress gave them that distinction after another series of such hearings in the 80’s. In doing so, it acted against the advice of the AMA, the FDA and the DEA, among others.

The congress has a nasty habit of sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. I’m not sure if this began with McCarthy and HUAC, but at least since then, the legislative branch has become little more than a hearing mill. Instead of debating and enacting or defeating legislation, it holds endless hearings that often amount to little more than an opportunity to publicly humiliate someone.

While I sometimes enjoy seeing powerful people being taken to task in a public forum, that seems to be the only purpose they serve. Our senators and representatives generally have all the information they need before the hearing, so the hearings do little to nothing to provide new information. They simply provide a platform for pompous politicians to appear relevant.

And some almost scream usurpation of power over other government entities.

Right now, it’s the Ft. Hood shootings. Some are clamoring for immediate hearings, even before the FBI and Defense Department can complete their investigations of the facts or review of policies that might prevent a similar future attack. They want to put the cart of the larger issue of possible systemic problems before the horse of professional investigators conducting a professional investigation and determining the facts of the case.

The congress, collectively, seems to have read too many Hardy Boys and/or Nancy Drew books. Or maybe they’ve seen too many episodes of “Murder She Wrote”. These shootings don’t need amateur sleuths poking their noses where they don’t belong. They need a thorough investigation, analysis and review by professionals. Professionals who are not running for re-election.

In Iran, North Korea and China, show-trials are par for the course. Sentences are determined before the trials begin. Congressional hearings aren’t far from that, often. Legislators, armed with all the information that they’ll be asking about, seek to either excoriate and humiliate or praise the witness. The outcome is predetermined.

At this point, the legislature is not a proper venue for investigating the Ft. Hood shootings. One cannot legislate sanity, and that seems to be a pivotal question in this case. As to how it happened, we should give the pro’s a chance to address the issue before we let the congress stick its big nose in.

I could probably answer all their questions based on my own experiences.

• Is it possible to distinguish mental illness from political, religious or ethnic zealotry? Not always. Mental illness often takes one of those forms. It provides a footing, a kind of self-validation, that isn’t otherwise available.
• Can someone be outspoken and not have the likely potential to go “postal”? Yes. I’m mouthy, opinionated and passionate about what I believe, but I’ve never had the urge to pick up a gun and shoot people.
• Could or should someone have seen this coming? Not really. The shooter had never been violent before. Whether we want to believe it or not, we base expectations of future behavior on past behavior. His past behavior suggests, if anything, apathy. He was not a rigorous student, nor was he dedicated to his work.
• Should he have been removed from duty? Probably. Everything points to a recognition that he was an obvious liability. Although the Army needs doctors, it doesn’t need every particular one.
• Was this attack premeditated? Most likely. One does not wake up, go to prayer, get a cup of coffee and then start shooting without thinking about it before.
• Was he sane? I don’t know. Probably. But I suspect his defense will hinge on that issue. It’s possible he was having a psychotic bi-polar episode, which would qualify as insane. On the other hand, he could have been having a bad day and decided to take it out on other people. Not insane, just pissed off. His career wasn’t going well, and like many under-performing individuals, he probably blamed other people for his own lack of achievement.

In the end, the legislature needs to let the investigative bodies that it over-sees at least complete an investigation before it drags the whole matter into what would amount to a show-trial. I’m not sure what public good congressional hearings would hold at this point.

They would most likely be an exercise in futility that undermines the justice system. Instead of being tried in a court of law, he would be effectively tried in Congress. Futile, at best. A dog and pony show that presumes guilt and does not take into account the simple constitutional principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

I suspect that he will the first person executed by the military since 1969, but I’d rather leave that in military hands. For now, so should Congress.