'Beltway Sniper' case
Media try not to embarrass Pentagon
By Pam Parker
Washington, D.C.
As the U.S. government prepares to go to war yet again, the
question on many people's minds about the "Beltway Sniper" case
is still not being asked by the media. Are the 10 people killed
in the Washington, D.C., area delayed "collateral damage" from
the last Gulf War?
John Muhammad cleared land mines and qualified as an expert
with the M-16 rifle while serving in the Gulf War before being
honorably discharged in 1994.
The person arrested with him and also charged with murder in
the case, 17-year-old John Lee Malvo, emigrated to the United
States from Jamaica. He was undocumented and homeless.
Six out of the 10 murders occurred in Montgomery County,
Md., an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C. Nearly four times
as many murders occurred in D.C. proper during this same
three-week period, but were given very little attention.
Muhammad's conversion to Islam is offered as an explanation
for his "hatred of America," and Malvo's immigrant status has
been used to justify the racist policies of the INS against
other immigrants. As usual, the accused have already been tried
and convicted in the media.
Meanwhile, very little attention has been paid to the fact
that, over the past 50 years, the vast majority of serial
killers and domestic snipers have been veterans of the U.S.
military.
Ignoring the obvious
Although there was endless speculation about the
psychological makeup of the shooter(s), for weeks most
"experts" stayed away from making the obvious connection
between sniper training and the armed forces or the police.
Some actually offered the view that similar training could be
acquired over the Internet or by playing video games.
Many working class youth join the military to acquire
marketable skills or for other economic security. In exchange
they sign away their freedom and are many times forced to
slaughter working people of other countries--who have much in
common with them. So how does the Pentagon turn young people
into killers?
According to an article in the Oct. 25 Toronto Globe and
Mail, David Grossman, a former U.S. military psychologist, says
that soldiers are taught to remove themselves from human
suffering by a process called "disengagement." This process
breaks down the natural human aversion to kill. The military
increased these training tactics in reaction to soldiers'
hesitancy to kill when commanded. The military implemented this
training specifically to increase the "trigger pull ratio."
This training is specifically tailored for infantry soldiers,
snipers and other military personnel who may have to kill
people up close.
Serial killings were all but unheard of 50 years ago. Could
it be a coincidence that this tactic of "disengagement"
appeared at about the same time?
A sampling of the most notable snipers shows a clear
connection between military training and the propensity to take
innocent lives. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, and
Robert Flores, a 41-year-old nursing student who recently
opened fire on several professors and classmates before killing
himself in Tucson, Ariz., were both Gulf War veterans, like
John Muhammad.
During a six-week period this summer, four special forces
soldiers returning from the war in Afghanistan brutally
murdered their spouses. Two also killed themselves.
Jeffrey Dahmer; David Berkowitz--dubbed by the press the Son
of Sam--and Charles Whitman, who killed 16 people and injured
31 others in a 1961 sniper shooting rampage from the top of a
tower in Austin, Tex., were all military veterans.
In fact, the very first documented serial killer, Howard
Unruh, was a 28-year-old veteran of WW II who shot 13 of his
New Jersey neighbors in 1949.
However, connections like these were ignored by the media in
favor of racist stereotypes regarding Muslims.
Racism is also the undercurrent of the breakneck "rush to
justice."
So far Maryland, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana and the
federal government are battling over who should try Muhammad
and Malvo. The issue is not which jurisdiction was most
affected, but which is most likely to impose a swift death
sentence.
If the decision were based solely on which community was
most affected, Maryland would be the obvious choice. The other
authorities, however, argue that since Maryland implemented a
moratorium on death sentences and has "liberal" appellate court
judges who have only imposed three death sentences since 1976,
the state is an unacceptable choice.
Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler counters that
Maryland will indeed seek the death penalty in Muhammad's case,
even though he's unable to sentence the juvenile Malvo to
death. Forget the fact that current Maryland law says that even
if the moratorium is lifted, the death penalty may apply only
to multiple murder cases committed at one time.
The state of Virginia offers new "anti-terrorism" laws that
enable the state to seek the death penalty for juveniles. It
also holds anyone related to a capital offense culpable. It
promises that even if it is shown that Malvo did not pull the
trigger and he is a juvenile, these factors would not save him
in Virginia.
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, while leveling 20
federal charges against Muhammad, left no doubt as to his
motivations: "I believe that the ultimate sanction should be
available here." Forget the fact that murders are generally
tried under state laws. Whatever happened to "states' rights"?
Wasn't that the cornerstone of right-wing rhetoric for years?
No matter. Prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office invoked
the Hobbs Act as a way to subject the pair to the federal death
penalty.
The Hobbs Act states that it is a crime to "obstruct, delay
or affect" interstate commerce through robbery or extortion.
The U.S. prosecutor is attempting to use the accusation that
the two asked for $10 million as justification for the
charge.
The federal government was allegedly so anxious to try the
case that a federal agent interrupted an interrogation by
county prosecutors and whisked Muhammad off to Baltimore. Which
raises another question: Were these investigators getting
Muhammad to talk about his motive for the shootings? And might
that be embarrassing to the military?
Reprinted from the Nov. 14, 2002, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyrighted
under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe to WW by Email: wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Donate to
support pro-labor, anti-war news.
Email
this article
Printable
page