By Arturo Mora, Kansas City Star Midwest Voices columnist 2009

There’s absolutely no evidence that the Fort Hood case is one of organized home-grown Islamic terrorism. But, even if it was just one crazed man, if his main motivation was Islamic resentment, then it is a form of home-grown terrorism, and an issue we have to deal with. It’s a volatile question, but a natural one to ask.

Too many pieces of the puzzle are unknown, and as the president said, no one should jump to conclusions. But it’s the government’s solemn responsibility, and ours as a society, to look at all aspects of this. While we should do so with patience, respect and wisdom, we should not dismiss the question out of hand, is Fort Hood a case of home-grown Islamic terrorism?

The pieces indicating this are superficial and circumstantial evidence. The biggest point being bandied about is that the killer, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan,, shouted ”Allahu Akbar” before shooting, which is reported as meaning, “God is Great.” Other supposed indicators, according to reports, are that he had recently become a more devout Muslim, and that he strongly opposed both our wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More likely this is a case, as many reports also indicate, of a troubled, crazed man who was afraid of going to a war zone and leaving his family behind. It’s unknowable what exactly what was in his mind. Was he just a troubled man, an American soldier who couldn’t handle the stress of war (and much reporting indicates the military handled this aspect poorly)? The question we don’t want to ask but should, was he a troubled Muslim who now hated the country he was born in, because of what he perceived it was doing to Muslims in the Middle East?

In Europe, especially in Great Britain, home-grown Islamic terrorism has become as big a threat, or bigger, than Al Qaeda plots. The conventional wisdom is that our Islamic population is not as radicalized as Europe’s, and that our society handles assimilation much better. I agree with that characterization, and yet warn that caution is the watchword when it comes to Islamic fundamentalism.

Militant Islamic fundamentalism—not Islam itself—is a more peculiar and passionate brand of religion than most others in the 21st century, and mixed with Muslim opposition to our wars, it can plant a seed that can take hold in impressionable minds, even here.

So due caution is necessary, as it always should be anyway. Surveillance of any contacts with Al Qaeda or other terrorists should continue, within the law. The British government regularly keeps an eye on radical mullahs living there. It’s trickier for us to do that, because we have a stricter Constitution (they have no formal one), and it opens a Pandora’s box involving free speech and religious freedom. Who judges what’s radical enough to warrant surveillance?

We need to be careful about overreaction on all sides, racism, and slipping away from the liberties promised by our Consititution. The spectre of Japanese-American concentration camps during World War II still haunts us, so thank God no one (that I know of) has suggested that.

Due to our very nature as an immigrant nation, America has always had to deal with the uneasy situation of ethnic groups living here from countries we are battling in war. We are not battling any Muslim nation per se, but we are obviously at war in Muslim regions. Except for the Japanese-American camps, we have always handled such unease with wisdom and justice. Let’s not slip up on that.