Still wrestling with Orlando… why? Because it was awful.
Why else? Because it continues to be challenging the way many respond… again, this past weekend.
Borrowing from one of the Intramuralist’s fave sites, RealClearPolitics.com…
The Washington Post reported last week that the gunman made multiple phone calls while holding hostages: “The gunman who opened fire inside a nightclub here said he carried out the attack because he wanted ‘Americans to stop bombing his country,’ according to a witness who survived the rampage.”
Salon reported that: “Everybody who was in the bathroom who survived could hear him talking to 911, saying the reason why he’s doing this is because he wanted America to stop bombing his country.”
The Washington Post also noted that during his 911 call from the club, the gunman referenced the Boston Marathon bombers and claimed “that he carried out the shooting to prevent bombings, [echoing] a message the younger Boston attacker had scrawled in a note before he was taken into custody by police.”
In other words, the murderer clearly claimed his allegiance to radical Islamic terrorism.
On Sunday, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that the Justice Dept. would be intentionally editing the 911 transcripts from that fateful evening — removing those Islamic pledges of allegiance. They then released the redacted transcript — no audio — later on Monday morning.
Her motive?
“The reason why we’re going to limit these transcripts is to avoid revictimizing those who went through this horror,” said Lynch.
Interesting…
If such is the full, sole motive, then I am assuming this precedent will be set for other horrific, violent acts…
… if someone attempts to blow up an abortion clinic… if someone is viciously raped… if someone targets black people… Jewish people… police officers…
So “revictimizing” is a justified reason to omit details?
As simply a semi-humble current events observer (and as always, the emphasis is on the “semi”), I question whether it’s rational, logical, and wise that the full and only motive is as the Attorney General states. With all due respect, I am not suggesting lies or deceit; I do not claim to know. I am merely saying that in our ongoing desire to wrestle with all aspects of the truth — hard as that may be some days — this just doesn’t make sense to me. The fact that the Orlando murderer was motivated by his violent interpretation of Islam is relevant to this crime. It is one aspect of the truth.
Let me also not assert that I know the entire motive for scrubbing the 911 transcripts; there is much I don’t understand… I don’t understand, for example, the purging of references regarding radical Islamic terrorism in government agent training manuals in recent years. My thought is that it would be wisest to include all aspects as a part of those trained to recognize potential problems.
So I wonder… Can we not deal with all aspects of the truth?
And if we decide it’s best to omit specific aspects, will we be consistent in the way we wrestle with others who commit such awful crimes? Will re-victimization be an acceptable reason for withholding details then? … for the non radical Islamic terrorist?
As usual, my wondering sometimes gets the best of me…
[Added update: after strong negative reaction to the Justice Dept.’s arbitrary decision to redact all references to Islam in the murderer’s 911 calls — from far more than the Intramuralist — the Justice Dept. reversed their Sunday declaration, releasing an uncensored transcript later on Monday. As for this observer, I continue to wonder…]
Respectfully…
AR