Purple hearts for victims at Ft. Hood, TX

[Robert A Whit]

This may interest we Vets more than the rest but anyone is welcome to comment.

I learned this AM the vets at Ft. Hood that were wounded due to gunfire from the Army Major, Muslim & making it clear by his Allah Akbar remarks as he gunned down victims, are being treated as if the crime was but a shooting crime.

I can't tell for sure, but it seems to this Vet that once Obama looked at the combatants as just criminals, and took his eye off the fighting terrorism as a war rather than cops and robbers, he doomed the vets to no purple heart medal.

First, I see the Major as a war fighter, based on his self serving comments.

I suspect Obama could step in and simply as CIC rule that the victims were shot as part of the war but then he would have to admit a war exists.

I hope something happens to give the victims all medals.

Remember what you thought the day we learned of the mass killings?

It may be that the only killings Obama honors are school kids.

I can't remember what happened, but did Obama ever bring the survivors to the white house to make a point the same way he brought family to the gray house to pay homage to the victims of Sandy Hook? I don't usually spend my time tracking much that Obama does so if he brought in the victims, I missed it.

Did he?

Would you award them purple hearts if you had command?

They deserve the purple hearts as I see it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This may interest we Vets more than the rest but anyone is welcome to comment.

I learned this AM the vets at Ft. Hood that were wounded due to gunfire from the Army Major, Muslim & making it clear by his Allah Akbar remarks as he gunned down victims, are being treated as if the crime was but a shooting crime.

I can't tell for sure, but it seems to this Vet that once Obama looked at the combatants as just criminals, and took his eye off the fighting terrorism as a war rather than cops and robbers, he doomed the vets to no purple heart medal.

First, I see the Major as a war fighter, based on his self serving comments.

I suspect Obama could step in and simply as CIC rule that the victims were shot as part of the war but then he would have to admit a war exists.

I hope something happens to give the victims all medals.

Remember what you thought the day we learned of the mass killings?

It may be that the only killings Obama honors are school kids.

I can't remember what happened, but did Obama ever bring the survivors to the white house to make a point the same way he brought family to the gray house to pay homage to the victims of Sandy Hook? I don't usually spend my time tracking much that Obama does so if he brought in the victims, I missed it.

Did he?

Would you award them purple hearts if you had command?

They deserve the purple hearts as I see it.

Obama sides with our muslim enemies. He will not do that. It was by his order/command that it was (insanely) designated as "workplace violence"!!
How convenient it is to not see the bastard for the SOB THAT HE IS!! Tis' why I and many other patriots declare that the sorry bastard is not our president. We refuse to accept as our leader a traitorous bastard regardless of the damn vote. In this particular case the corrupted and engineered vote be damned.. The SOB is not and never will be my president!!! I at any cost to me refuse to accept any such traitor as my leader.. F-HIM!! -Tyr

[logroller]

No they won't receive Purple Hearts. Hassan's attack fell into a legal loophole for purposes of trial. I don't know about the gray house, but weren't some at a state of the union or something. :dunno: really too bad Hassan wasn't killed; then the "workplace violence" thing would have been a moot issue.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=627902#post627902)
This may interest we Vets more than the rest but anyone is welcome to comment.

I learned this AM the vets at Ft. Hood that were wounded due to gunfire from the Army Major, Muslim & making it clear by his Allah Akbar remarks as he gunned down victims, are being treated as if the crime was but a shooting crime.

I can't tell for sure, but it seems to this Vet that once Obama looked at the combatants as just criminals, and took his eye off the fighting terrorism as a war rather than cops and robbers, he doomed the vets to no purple heart medal.

First, I see the Major as a war fighter, based on his self serving comments.

I suspect Obama could step in and simply as CIC rule that the victims were shot as part of the war but then he would have to admit a war exists.

I hope something happens to give the victims all medals.

Remember what you thought the day we learned of the mass killings?

It may be that the only killings Obama honors are school kids.

I can't remember what happened, but did Obama ever bring the survivors to the white house to make a point the same way he brought family to the gray house to pay homage to the victims of Sandy Hook? I don't usually spend my time tracking much that Obama does so if he brought in the victims, I missed it.

Did he?

Would you award them purple hearts if you had command?

They deserve the purple hearts as I see it.


Obama sides with our muslim enemies. He will not do that. It was by his order/command that it was (insanely) designated as "workplace violence"!!
How convenient it is to not see the bastard for the SOB THAT HE IS!! Tis' why I and many other patriots declare that the sorry bastard is not our president. We refuse to accept as our leader a traitorous bastard regardless of the damn vote. In this particular case the corrupted and engineered vote be damned.. The SOB is not and never will be my president!!! I at any cost to me refuse to accept any such traitor as my leader.. F-HIM!! -Tyr

I do not understand why Obama can't bring himself to commit to war on terror.

When he faces them, he is so half hearted.

[Robert A Whit]

No they won't receive Purple Hearts. Hassan's attack fell into a legal loophole for purposes of trial. I don't know about the gray house, but weren't some at a state of the union or something. :dunno: really too bad Hassan wasn't killed; then the "workplace violence" thing would have been a moot issue.

I know, Obama can't handle being CIC and making decisions of a commander. So he shuffles it off to something like what took place at Sandy Hook,

I wish the man could lead. This nonsense of leading from the rear of the parade has a lot of people upset.

[logroller]

I know, Obama can't handle being CIC and making decisions of a commander. So he shuffles it off to something like what took place at Sandy Hook,

I wish the man could lead. This nonsense of leading from the rear of the parade has a lot of people upset.
Chock law up to the list of things you fail to grasp. I've went to the effort of examining ucmj law and a relevant directive dating back to 1986; then posted it on this site for all to see, yet not one person responded, let alone challenged it. I guess when the facts don't fit what you want to believe, you just ignore it. Thats just ignorant. I prefer not to be led by someone who caters to ignorance. IMO Obama has violated the rule of law many times, but this is not one of them and rallying against a time when he did, in fact, obey the law discredits those with legitimate challenges.

[Robert A Whit]

Chock law up to the list of things you fail to grasp. I've went to the effort of examining ucmj law and a relevant directive dating back to 1986; then posted it on this site for all to see, yet not one person responded, let alone challenged it. I guess when the facts don't fit what you want to believe, you just ignore it. Thats just ignorant. I prefer not to be led by someone who caters to ignorance. IMO Obama has violated the rule of law many times, but this is not one of them and rallying against a time when he did, in fact, obey the law discredits those with legitimate challenges.

I am not nearly as proficient with the UCMJ as I once was. I had the UCMJ for my daily use in my desk and I spent a lot of time studying it.

I am talking of the purple hearts for vets who got shot.

Maybe it is okay by you, but in my humble view, it sucks. They were attacked by a warrior of Islam.

What ever gave you the idea I had no grasp of the UCMJ?

For me seeking purple hearts for the vets, you try to jaw bone me. Oh well, I do care about the vets.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Chock law up to the list of things you fail to grasp. I've went to the effort of examining ucmj law and a relevant directive dating back to 1986; then posted it on this site for all to see, yet not one person responded, let alone challenged it. I guess when the facts don't fit what you want to believe, you just ignore it. Thats just ignorant. I prefer not to be led by someone who caters to ignorance. IMO Obama has violated the rule of law many times, but this is not one of them and rallying against a time when he did, in fact, obey the law discredits those with legitimate challenges.

Here you admit the bastard has a legacy of being a lawless SOB that often displays pure and utter contempt for the law while you criticize we that don't give a damn how he uses the law to suit his bullshit purposes. A lying bastard that seeks my destruction does not get points from me the few times he may be right on other issues and that is still me not agreeing he was right on the "workplace violence" issue.

They once hung horse thieves and shot injured horses didn't they?? The is a big difference between obama being wrongly accused and his having been judged to be a damn lying bastard for his past misdeeds. His true character has been revealed, why should I give two flying shats if he were wrongly judged on any issue after I know what a damn traitorous lying bastard he is!??

Your appeal reminds me of a person saying the convicted child molester always paid his parking tickets! Excuse me but who the hell cares??
That you disagree with my appraisal of his true character would be your best and most valid reason to judge my post as wrong IMHO.
AND TO THAT I SAY HE IS A DAMN FRAUD THAT SERVES HIS OWN EGO AND SELFISH DESIRES. CERTAINLY NOT A MAN THAT SERVES THIS NATION, IT'S BEST INTERESTS OR THAT OF IT'S CITIZENS!! -Tyr

[logroller]

I am not nearly as proficient with the UCMJ as I once was. I had the UCMJ for my daily use in my desk and I spent a lot of time studying it.

I am talking of the purple hearts for vets who got shot.

Maybe it is okay by you, but in my humble view, it sucks. They were attacked by a warrior of Islam.

What ever gave you the idea I had no grasp of the UCMJ?

For me seeking purple hearts for the vets, you try to jaw bone me. Oh well, I do care about the vets.
Thats odd that our military would knowingly employ an enemy of state. Or wait, Islam isn't a declared enemy of the united states. Yet again you ignore that this soldier of Islam was, in fact an officer in the US Army white committed his crime in a peaceful situation. The only way your argument works is if you ignore unique facts and specific rules that govern our nation.
There are rules for who receives a Purple Heart. Do you know them? State them. i have read them and Understand why not all vets receive them. I care about the rules and laws of this country that vets serve and have died to protect. Most veterans i know didn't serve to receive medals. So your argument is from a position of ignorance under the guise of patriotism. You sound like a nazi. :poke:

[Robert A Whit]

Thats odd that our military would knowingly employ an enemy of state. Or wait, Islam isn't a declared enemy of the united states. Yet again you ignore that this soldier of Islam was, in fact an officer in the US Army white committed his crime in a peaceful situation. The only way your argument works is if you ignore unique facts and specific rules that govern our nation.
There are rules for who receives a Purple Heart. Do you know them? State them. i have read them and Understand why not all vets receive them. I care about the rules and laws of this country that vets serve and have died to protect. Most veterans i know didn't serve to receive medals. So your argument is from a position of ignorance under the guise of patriotism. You sound like a nazi. :poke:

Well, apparently in your mind, I rank right there with the killer.

Sorry pal, OBAMA can figure out how to award them with the purple heart, if he had a heart that is.

[logroller]

Here you admit the bastard has a legacy of being a lawless SOB that often displays pure and utter contempt for the law while you criticize we that don't give a damn how he uses the law to suit his bullshit purposes. A lying bastard that seeks my destruction does not get points from me the few times he may be right on other issues and that is still me not agreeing he was right on the "workplace violence" issue.

They once hung horse thieves and shot injured horses didn't they?? The is a big difference between obama being wrongly accused and his having been judged to be a damn lying bastard for his past misdeeds. His true character has been revealed, why should I give two flying shats if he were wrongly judged on any issue after I know what a damn traitorous lying bastard he is!??

Your appeal reminds me of a person saying the convicted child molester always paid his parking tickets! Excuse me but who the hell cares??

That you disagree with my appraisal of his true character would be your best and most valid reason to judge my post as wrong IMHO.
AND TO THAT I SAY HE IS A DAMN FRAUD THAT SERVES HIS OWN EGO AND SELFISH DESIRES. CERTAINLY NOT A MAN THAT SERVES THIS NATION, IT'S BEST INTERESTS OR THAT OF IT'S CITIZENS!! -Tyr

I see your appraisal as irrelevant as child molesters and parking tickets. That Obama was reelected shows that obfuscation and arguments founded upon character assignation fail to promote your ideals. This is a pity IMO, for I genuinely believe we have a shared view of what makes this country great-- that is why I criticize you, not because i support Obama. What I appeal to is a sense of rationality devoid of rhetoric and ignorance; for history shows this be more congenial with the advancement of freedom and liberty.

[logroller]

Well, apparently in your mind, I rank right there with the killer.

Sorry pal, OBAMA can figure out how to award them with the purple heart, if he had a heart that is.
Apparently in your mind...not mine. Sorry pal, Obama could figure out how to ban assault rifles too, if he had a heart that is. :poke:

[gabosaurus]

Sorry people, but under regulations set by the military, none of the casualties at Fort Hood are eligible for the Purple Heart. You can read it yourself:

http://www.recognizethesacrifice.org/purple-heart-criteria.html

Specifically, the assailant was a member of the U.S. military. Doesn't matter if he was a crazy person or not. As an American citizen, he can not be classified as an "enemy of the United States."

[Kathianne]

Sorry people, but under regulations set by the military, none of the casualties at Fort Hood are eligible for the Purple Heart. You can read it yourself:

http://www.recognizethesacrifice.org/purple-heart-criteria.html

Specifically, the assailant was a member of the U.S. military. Doesn't matter if he was a crazy person or not. As an American citizen, he can not be classified as an "enemy of the United States."

Really?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/politics/obama-drones-cia


Holder does not rule out drone strike scenario in U.S. <!--endclickprintinclude--><!--startclickprintexclude--> <!--no partner--> By Terry Frieden, CNN Justice Producer
updated 5:53 PM EST, Wed March 6, 2013

[gabosaurus]

Let me rephrase that: How can a member of the U.S. military be classified as an enemy of the United States?
If nothing else, the deceased were killed by friendly fire.

[Kathianne]

Let me rephrase that: How can a member of the U.S. military be classified as an enemy of the United States?
If nothing else, the deceased were killed by friendly fire.

It seems you don't understand the concept of 'friendly fire.'

[aboutime]

Let me rephrase that: How can a member of the U.S. military be classified as an enemy of the United States?
If nothing else, the deceased were killed by friendly fire.


When someone yells ALLAH AKBAR while shooting should be hint enough for the gabby's of the world.

[Robert A Whit]

I see your appraisal as irrelevant as child molesters and parking tickets. That Obama was reelected shows that obfuscation and arguments founded upon character assignation fail to promote your ideals. This is a pity IMO, for I genuinely believe we have a shared view of what makes this country great-- that is why I criticize you, not because i support Obama. What I appeal to is a sense of rationality devoid of rhetoric and ignorance; for history shows this be more congenial with the advancement of freedom and liberty.

What is your problem?

That would be as much fun as sniffng dirty socks. (Well no, I did not sniff dirty socks but I sock it to Obama.)

[Robert A Whit]

Sorry people, but under regulations set by the military, none of the casualties at Fort Hood are eligible for the Purple Heart. You can read it yourself:

http://www.recognizethesacrifice.org/purple-heart-criteria.html

Specifically, the assailant was a member of the U.S. military. Doesn't matter if he was a crazy person or not. As an American citizen, he can not be classified as an "enemy of the United States."

Obama is so skilled in ignoring law. That is why the chicken poop could ignore that law.

[gabosaurus]

It seems you don't understand the concept of 'friendly fire.'

I understand the concept very well.


Friendly fire --
Discharge of a military weapon that injures or kills a member of one's own armed forces or an ally.

[gabosaurus]

Let's hope Obama is better at golf that Cheney was at hunting. :p

[Robert A Whit]

I understand the concept very well.


Friendly fire ]--
Discharge of a military weapon that injures or kills a member of one's own armed forces or an ally.

What makes it friendly is is an accident during war.

Major Hassan did not have an accident.

[jimnyc]

Let me rephrase that: How can a member of the U.S. military be classified as an enemy of the United States?
If nothing else, the deceased were killed by friendly fire.

When that member spent several years communicating with an Al Qaeda leader, and discussed the killing of innocent people, and the afterlife. Sounds like he was a terrorist in the making and getting support, if not instructions from a known terror group/leader.

[logroller]

What is your problem?

That would be as much fun as sniffng dirty socks. (Well no, I did not sniff dirty socks but I sock it to Obama.)

Obama 2016-- are we having fun yet?:slap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thats odd that our military would knowingly employ an enemy of state. Or wait, Islam isn't a declared enemy of the united states. :poke:

No, just one of it's core parts is. The Jihadists or are they not a core part of Islam??-Tyr

[logroller]

No, just one of it's core parts is. The Jihadists or are they not a core part of Islam??-Tyr
Really? jihadists are enemies of state? were they enemies of state when we trained and armed them to fight, eg against the Russians? Perhaps you could provide a congressionally approved ucmj directive that declares such. I looked, couldn't find one. :dunno:

[Robert A Whit]

Really? jihadists are enemies of state? were they enemies of state when we trained and armed them to fight, eg against the Russians? Perhaps you could provide a congressionally approved ucmj directive that declares such. I looked, couldn't find one. :dunno:

The only training they perhaps got was to operate the stinger missile. But based on remarks by the CIA head of station in Pakistan at the time, he did not help Obama but supported the freedom fighters.

[logroller]

When that member spent several years communicating with an Al Qaeda leader, and discussed the killing of innocent people, and the afterlife. Sounds like he was a terrorist in the making and getting support, if not instructions from a known terror group/leader.
That to me is the biggest issue here. And I'd like to add that government officials were aware of these communications and thought them benign. If he were charged as a terrorist, defense could argue that the dismissal of his communications as benign meant that intelligence gathering and counterintelligence by government officials must then be considered aiding and abetting an enemy. Its a legal nightmare; best avoided. Once Hassan is found guilty and executed the medals will be awarded. Shame it takes so long; but such is law.

[Missileman]

Let me rephrase that: How can a member of the U.S. military be classified as an enemy of the United States?
If nothing else, the deceased were killed by friendly fire.

Friendly fire assumes accidental. The dead at Fort Hood were murdered, plain and simple.

[logroller]

The only training they perhaps got was to operate the stinger missile. But based on remarks by the CIA head of station in Pakistan at the time, he did not help Obama but supported the freedom fighters.
"Based on remarks from the CIA"....perhaps you fail to grasp the essence of what the CIA does.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Really? jihadists are enemies of state? were they enemies of state when we trained and armed them to fight, eg against the Russians? Perhaps you could provide a congressionally approved ucmj directive that declares such. I looked, couldn't find one. :dunno:

Perhaps you could look up the two entities the Islamist Jihadists swear(their own words too) to destroy Log.
That would be little Satan first and big Satan next.
Little Satan= Israel
Big Satan= USA.
I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE A CONGRESSIONAL DEFINITION OF ENEMY.
As -ALL- that seek our destruction are our enemies regardless of who does or does not declare them to be so. REALITY AND COMMON SENSE SHOULD PREVAIL MY FRIEND...

Perhaps look again , try big and little Satan and Jihadist goals. -Tyr

[logroller]

Perhaps you could look up the two entities the Islamist Jihadists swear(their own words too) to destroy Log.
That would be little Satan first and big Satan next.
Little Satan= Israel
Big Satan= USA.
I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE A CONGRESSIONAL DEFINITION OF ENEMY.
As -ALL- that seek our destruction are our enemies regardless of who does or does not declare them to be so. REALITY AND COMMON SENSE SHOULD PREVAIL MY FRIEND...

Perhaps look again , try big and little Satan and Jihadist goals. -Tyr oh big satan and little satan; that's what you want me to look up? I was just researching Ucmj jurisdiction over parking violation.
Compliance with the congressional-approved ucmj definition of enemy is necessary in order to be considered for a Purple Heart-- that is reality. Common sense would tell me that your position proffers executive fiat as acceptable. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

oh big satan and little satan; that's what you want me to look up? I was just researching Ucmj jurisdiction over parking violation.
Compliance with the congressional-approved ucmj definition of enemy is necessary in order to be considered for a Purple Heart-- that is reality. Common sense would tell me that your position proffers executive fiat as acceptable. ;)

The discussion had went from that of purple hearts to that of "enemy of the state" in my reply.
The murdering bastard was Jihad warrior when he praised Allah as he murdered and wounded those soldiers. Not you, not obama ,not any authority on earth can negate that damn TRUTH.

MY POSITION OFFERED TRUTH AND HOW IT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN -ANY- DAMN POLITICAL MANEUVERING OR GOVERNMENT DEFINITION....

As truth leads to justice, rarely ever is justice found without it's constant companion--TRUTH!!!--TYR

[gabosaurus]

When that member spent several years communicating with an Al Qaeda leader, and discussed the killing of innocent people, and the afterlife. Sounds like he was a terrorist in the making and getting support, if not instructions from a known terror group/leader.

Has this been proven? And if it has, why didn't the military know about it?

[logroller]

The discussion had went from that of purple hearts to that of "enemy of the state" in my reply.
The murdering bastard was Jihad warrior when he praised Allah as he murdered and wounded those soldiers. Not you, not obama ,not any authority on earth can negate that damn TRUTH.

MY POSITION OFFERED TRUTH AND HOW IT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN -ANY- DAMN POLITICAL MANEUVERING OR GOVERNMENT DEFINITION....

As truth leads to justice, rarely ever is justice found without it's constant companion--TRUTH!!!--TYR
Your last blue statement is far from truthful.
i see.shifting your position to another in the middle of argument. I am Not trying to change the truth tyr; I'm merely presenting it. The truth is that under ucmj Hassan will in all likelihood, die for his actions. Not sure what else you want. But officially classifying the act as terrorism would definitely complicate and could possibly undermine the prosecution of Hassan. Just how happy would you be if hassan managed to get himself classified as an enemy combatant and walked? Is that more just? Cause in truth, that can happen. Truth is that sometimes innocent people die and sometimes guilty people walk free and the rule of justice under law serves to mitigate both. Vigilantism serves to mitigate the latter and aggravate the former.

[Robert A Whit]

"Based on remarks from the CIA"....perhaps you fail to grasp the essence of what the CIA does.

Oh gee. That is your best shot?

[logroller]

Oh gee. That is your best shot?
wasnt a shot at all. Just a statement. The CIA isn't in the habit of revealing what it does. But even with what has been revealed, your statement that all we did was show them how to use a stinger missiles is just plain false.

By: Steve Coll, 'Washington Post', July 19, 1992

A specially equipped C-141 Starlifter transport carrying William Casey touched down at a military air base south of Islamabad in October 1984 for a secret visit by the CIA director to plan strategy for the war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Helicopters lifted Casey to three secret training camps near the Afghan border, where he watched mujaheddin rebels fire heavy weapons and learn to make bombs with CIA-supplied plastic explosives and detonators.


http://www.globalissues.org/article/258/anatomy-of-a-victory-cias-covert-afghan-war

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It seems you don't understand the concept of 'friendly fire.'

Gabby shows her true level of understanding with those two posts. Its like discussing politics with a 9 year old kid. One that is also not too bright to start with.

"friendly fire" coming from a man deliberately murdering his brothers and sisters in arms.
"American can not be an enemy of United States" !!
That has to be the two most ignorant statements THAT I'VE READ IN YEARS ON THE INTERNET.
NO WONDER THAT SHE SO OFTEN LOBS OUT STINKERS AND THEN RUNS AWAY NOT DEFENDING HER CRAP.

"FRIENDLY FIRE", YEP JFK WAS A VICTIM OF THAT TOO ,RIGHT GABBY?-:laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your last blue statement is far from truthful.
i see.shifting your position to another in the middle of argument. I am Not trying to change the truth tyr; I'm merely presenting it. The truth is that under ucmj Hassan will in all likelihood, die for his actions. Not sure what else you want. But officially classifying the act as terrorism would definitely complicate and could possibly undermine the prosecution of Hassan. Just how happy would you be if hassan managed to get himself classified as an enemy combatant and walked? Is that more just? Cause in truth, that can happen. Truth is that sometimes innocent people die and sometimes guilty people walk free and the rule of justice under law serves to mitigate both. Vigilantism serves to mitigate the latter and aggravate the former.

With obama as president and no re-election to face what makes you think Hassan will get the death penalty and that penalty actually be carried out?? I'll bet you 20 bucks any day that the muslim bastard is not ever put to death by American authorities for the many murders he without a doubt engaged in .
Let it be noted I never shift my position unless I find myself clearly and without a doubt in the wrong . Then I openly admit that as I did with Drummond on our Churchill/Thatcher debate which he won.-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Has this been proven? And if it has, why didn't the military know about it?

Yes, it has been proven. Do you not read the news? Or at least read about this story before commenting?

They knew about it but apparently didn't take it seriously and didn't see it as a threat, although I have no idea why. Even the terrorist task force was involved in the investigation. He was in contact with Awlaki, the terrorist leader, since as early as 2002. There were no outright threats though, nothing about Fort Hood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan

[aboutime]

Yes, it has been proven. Do you not read the news? Or at least read about this story before commenting?

They knew about it but apparently didn't take it seriously and didn't see it as a threat, although I have no idea why. Even the terrorist task force was involved in the investigation. He was in contact with Awlaki, the terrorist leader, since as early as 2002. There were no outright threats though, nothing about Fort Hood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan


jimnyc. Just a reminder. UNLESS gabby has said it. Nothing else is true, viable, honest, verifiable, accurate, honest, or Real.

In other words. Gabby decided WHAT, WHO, WHEN, WHERE, WHY and HOW anything, anyone says is according to gabby. PERIOD.

[logroller]

With obama as president and no re-election to face what makes you think Hassan will get the death penalty and that penalty actually be carried out?? I'll bet you 20 bucks any day that the muslim bastard is not ever put to death by American authorities for the many murders he without a doubt engaged in .
Let it be noted I never shift my position unless I find myself clearly and without a doubt in the wrong . Then I openly admit that as I did with Drummond on our Churchill/Thatcher debate which he won.-Tyr
Due process (trial, appeals etc) will in all likelihood take longer than Obama will be president. Do you think due process should be violated?

[Kathianne]

Due process (trial, appeals etc) will in all likelihood take longer than Obama will be president. Do you think due process should be violated?

Holder and Obama can envision scenarios which might make it possible.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Due process (trial, appeals etc) will in all likelihood take longer than Obama will be president. Do you think due process should be violated?

Due process can be speed up without violating it. No, give the murdering piece of scum his fair day in court, then shoot the bastard right between the eyes. That is unless you think he isnt guilty and can convince me such a fairy tale is true.
How about it, is he guilty in your opnion Log? If yes , should he be executed?


Obama and Holder can do magic things , dont ya know?? So your thoughts on how it should go are not relevant. Obama has authority to greatly affect this case, as he is CiC and the President.
Never underestimate obama's possible corrupt actions.. -Tyr

[logroller]

Due process can be speed up without violating it. No, give the murdering piece of scum his fair day in court, then shoot the bastard right between the eyes. That is unless you think he isnt guilty and can convince me such a fairy tale is true.
How about it, is he guilty in your opnion Log? If yes , should he be executed?


Obama and Holder can do magic things , dont ya know?? So your thoughts on how it should go are not relevant. Obama has authority to greatly affect this case, as he is CiC and the President.
Never underestimate obama's possible corrupt actions.. -Tyr
I've stated yes to both, multiple times. But if my thoughts are irrelevant, then so are your's and so is everyone's opinion save those of the jurists deciding the case and those who shall consider appeals. Regardless of whether this is purely an intellectual exercise, what i have attempted to show is, and have provided relevant laws to support the conclusion, that the classification of workplace violence provides for the most expeditious handling of the case. That labeling it otherwise, ie terrorism, would complicate the case and extend the trial& appeals processes and thus further extend the time frame until punishment is meted out. If this is true; has Obama not done his duty as CiC? If it is false; can you show any legal justification or evidence that trying this outside ucmj jurisdiction is not only warranted in the furtherance of justice but also that an appeal could not be levied for the reasons i have given that could result in another trial?
I don't underestimate any lawyer, corrupt or not; Obama included.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I find myself in the unenviable position of having to agree with logroller.

While I feel 'personally' that purple hearts should be granted in the Ft. Hood shooting, the technicality of it is that they cannot. Since it was classified as a workplace incident, and not a battlefield incident, that right there prevents the awarding of a purple heart, according to military regulations. Additionally, since the purp was a US soldier, the requirement that the injury be from enemy action is also not met.

It sucks, big time. But it's the way the rules are written.

[Robert A Whit]

I find myself in the unenviable position of having to agree with logroller.

While I feel 'personally' that purple hearts should be granted in the Ft. Hood shooting, the technicality of it is that they cannot. Since it was classified as a workplace incident, and not a battlefield incident, that right there prevents the awarding of a purple heart, according to military regulations. Additionally, since the purp was a US soldier, the requirement that the injury be from enemy action is also not met.

It sucks, big time. But it's the way the rules are written.

John Kerry self injured himself, being wounded in his butt, by rice. He tossed a grenade which hit sacks of rice and the man got a purple heart.

That was not workplace violence and the KIA and wounded are entitled to a purple. Heart. Those would not in any way mitigate his ruthless killing of those he saw as his enemies as he worked for terrorists.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It seems you don't understand the concept of 'friendly fire.'

friendly fire is when US soldiers get hit by fire from their own side. It does not technically classify those doing the firing as enemy combatants.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I find myself in the unenviable position of having to agree with logroller.

I know the feeling. As I have had to agree with him before....
sumthang jest ain't right when dat happins..;););)

Always left me feeling kinda puny for a while...:laugh:, but when he is right he is right...
I see much more of his point on this now. -Tyr

[logroller]

I know the feeling. As I have had to agree with him before....
sumthang jest ain't right when dat happins..;););)

Always left me feeling kinda puny for a while...:laugh:, but when he is right he is right...
I see much more of his point on this now. -Tyr
Fwiw, I agree that there are some facts about the case that cause me to believe the administration was derelict. Specifically, Hassan, himself a muslim, having communications with a known muslim terrorist discussing the merits of waging holy war against fellow soldiers certainly should raise some red flags...and did, only to be dismissed by the administration/chain of command. Some culpability lies upon those who made such an errant determination, the proverbial buck stopping at the CiC. I do not believe that Obama willfully dismissed the red flags in order to allow the attack; however, i can reasonably believe that in an effort to quell "islamic stereotypes" he unwittingly (read:ignorantly) allowed the attack to happen. The dismissal was a fatal error, and one I place wholly upon the CiC whose direction guides our fight against on terrorist acts. He failed in this regard. After the fact though, his hands were bound by the dismissive decision, forcing him into the politically untenable classification of workplace violence. I guess what I'm trying to say is its not that I think your conclusion is wrong, but rather your method of assessment. The devil is in the details; it's not Obama thats bad, its his policies.

[Robert A Whit]

Fwiw, I agree that there are some facts about the case that cause me to believe the administration was derelict. Specifically, Hassan, himself a muslim, having communications with a known muslim terrorist discussing the merits of waging holy war against fellow soldiers certainly should raise some red flags...and did, only to be dismissed by the administration/chain of command. Some culpability lies upon those who made such an errant determination, the proverbial buck stopping at the CiC. I do not believe that Obama willfully dismissed the red flags in order to allow the attack; however, i can reasonably believe that in an effort to quell "islamic stereotypes" he unwittingly (read:ignorantly) allowed the attack to happen. The dismissal was a fatal error, and one I place wholly upon the CiC whose direction guides our fight against on terrorist acts. He failed in this regard. After the fact though, his hands were bound by the dismissive decision, forcing him into the politically untenable classification of workplace violence. I guess what I'm trying to say is its not that I think your conclusion is wrong, but rather your method of assessment. The devil is in the details; it's not Obama thats bad, its his policies.

And of course Obama is not responsible for his policies. I think I understand.

[logroller]

And of course Obama is not responsible for his policies. I think I understand.
I think you misunderstand. You're stuck in habit of confronting the player, not the play. Such methods have proven to be to obama's advantage.

[Robert A Whit]

U.S. Army Calls Terrorism Work-Place Violence and Denies Slain Servicemen Purple Hearts
By Joe Calandra (http://www.libertynews.com/author/joseph/)
Published: April 1, 2013 1 (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynews.com%2F2013%2F04% 2Fu-s-army-calls-terrorism-work-place-violence-and-denies-slain-servicemen-purple-hearts%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Fpurple-300x240.jpg&description=U.S.%20Army%20Calls%20Terrorism%20Work-Place%20Violence%20and%20Denies%20Slain%20Servicem en%20Purple%20Hearts)



http://www.libertynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/no-purple-heart-300x300.jpg

When I heard that the Army decided to deny Purple Hearts to the victims of Major Nidal Malik Hassan’s Ft. Hood shooting spree, I was on my way to the Easter service at church. As a U.S.A.F. veteran, I could not comprehend why DOD officials would pour this much salt in the wounds of the surviving victims and outrage the families of those who fell in the massacre which left 13 soldiers/civil servants dead and another 32 wounded. Easter is a time in which many people across the globe focus on the message that a man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends. Hassan, an American citizen, native Virginian, and U.S. Army officer, betrayed a sacred trust on Nov 5, 2009 and took the lives of 13 people and wounded another 32 who trusted him to defend them from all enemies foreign and domestic – laying down his life for them, if necessary. Instead, he became one of those domestic enemies when he took up arms against his countrymen.

Army Regulations (http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/R600_8_22.pdf) governing award of the Purple Heart are extensive; yet the core requirements are not. To receive the medal, one must be wounded in the line of duty in which physical harm must have been caused to the serviceman or woman inflicted by an enemy combatant. After 9-11, there had been several nuanced questions regarding rather the medal could be given for wounds sustained domestically. DOD amended the Purple Heart award criteria to make it possible for victims of the Pentagon attack (and any other subsequent victims of domestic terrorist attack) to receive the medal. To view the full March 18, 2011 Memorandum (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2011_07.pdf) from the Secretary of the Army that addresses this topic, click here (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2011_07.pdf): Regarding the recent denial of the medal to Ft. Hood massacre victims, the most important part of the memo reads: “Approval of the Purple Heart requires the following factors…wound, injury or death must have been the result of an enemy or hostile act, international terrorist attack, or friendly fire…”
Some politicians and Army officials are not convinced that the tragedy at Ft. Hood should be caused terrorism. Instead, the Pentagon is officially calling the Ft. Hood incident “workplace violence (http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/fort-hood-shooting-victims-want-attack-called-terror-1.193553).” To view the complete Stars and Stripes story, click here (http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/fort-hood-shooting-victims-want-attack-called-terror-1.193553):
The Senate’s February 2011 report (http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf?attempt=2) on the shooting took 83 pages to find increasingly more technical and creative ways to say that Hassan was a “ticking time bomb” of anti-American sentiment that should have been removed from the military years before he arrived at Ft. Hood. To read the report, click here (http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf?attempt=2): During 2003-2008, then Captain Hassan did his residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center then completed a fellowship with the Uniformed Services University of Heath Sciences. The Senate Report reveals that during that time Hassan explained that he did not believe he could engage in combat against or support combat against his fellow Muslims. He was told that he could resign and “just say goodbye” at any point. He refused. His first draft for his final presentation to graduate from the fellowship known as “Grand Rounds” was full of justifications for jihad from a Muslim perspective citing verses from the Qur’an, defenses for Bin Laden’s statements condemning the West for killing Muslims in combat, and a host of offensive anti-American language. He was told to revise the presentation if he wanted to graduate. Even his revisions included much of the same anti-Western rhetoric. The Residency program director opposed Hassan’s graduation and called Hasan “very lazy” and a “religious fanatic.” His final presentation even stated that one risk of having Muslims in the military was the real threat of fratricidal behavior and justified terrorism using verses from the Qur’an. During another presentation, Hassan even admitted publically that he personally believed that his loyalty to Islamic Law and tradition superseded his oath to uphold the Constitution. Just 2 minutes into the presentation, he said that he believed that Bin Laden’s positions could be justified from a Muslim perspective and he expressed empathy for Muslims who were expressing their faith in violent, extreme, and jihadist ways. He was asked to sit down after his classmates, many of whom outranked him, objected. Yet, in 2008, Hassan not only graduated, but was promoted to Major and sent to Ft. Hood.
The March 29 Reuters report (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-usa-crime-forthood-idUSBRE92S0IW20130329) explains that Army legal spokesmen have admitted that the primary reason the army is refusing to award the medals to the victims or call the attack terrorism is to safeguard the presumed innocence of Hassan prior to conviction at court martial. To view the Reuters story, click here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-usa-crime-forthood-idUSBRE92S0IW20130329): According to Killeen Daily Herald (http://kdhnews.com/military/hasan_trial/judge-keeps-hasan-from-pleading-guilty/article_aa7d3df0-91d4-11e2-bfe2-0019bb30f31a.html), located just a few miles from Ft. Hood, the judge in the Hassan case, Col. Tara Osborn, has refused to accept Hassan’s confession to all 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. The Colonel insists that because the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, she cannot accept Hassan’s admission of guilt or plea of guilty to any lesser charge and insists that this capital case proceed to court martial. The next pretrial hearing is scheduled for April 16, 2013. To view the complete story, click here (http://kdhnews.com/military/hasan_trial/judge-keeps-hasan-from-pleading-guilty/article_aa7d3df0-91d4-11e2-bfe2-0019bb30f31a.html):
In short, Hassan killed and wounded his countrymen because he believes that was his religious duty. Now, the government of the people whose lives he took; will not even accept his confession to the murders and attempted murders and is forcing what is sure to be a lengthy, costly, controversial trial. That same government also considers Hassan’s legal team’s opportunity to prove that he did not intend to do what he says he intended to do to be of greater worth than simply acknowledging the massacre as an act of terrorism and awarding proper citations to those who died in the service to their country.

[Marcus Aurelius]

U.S. Army Calls Terrorism Work-Place Violence and Denies Slain Servicemen Purple Hearts
By Joe Calandra (http://www.libertynews.com/author/joseph/)
Published: April 1, 2013 1 (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynews.com%2F2013%2F04% 2Fu-s-army-calls-terrorism-work-place-violence-and-denies-slain-servicemen-purple-hearts%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Fpurple-300x240.jpg&description=U.S.%20Army%20Calls%20Terrorism%20Work-Place%20Violence%20and%20Denies%20Slain%20Servicem en%20Purple%20Hearts)
http://www.libertynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/no-purple-heart-300x300.jpg

When I heard that the Army decided to deny Purple Hearts to the victims of Major Nidal Malik Hassan’s Ft. Hood shooting spree, I was on my way to the Easter service at church. As a U.S.A.F. veteran, I could not comprehend why DOD officials would pour this much salt in the wounds of the surviving victims and outrage the families of those who fell in the massacre which left 13 soldiers/civil servants dead and another 32 wounded. Easter is a time in which many people across the globe focus on the message that a man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends. Hassan, an American citizen, native Virginian, and U.S. Army officer, betrayed a sacred trust on Nov 5, 2009 and took the lives of 13 people and wounded another 32 who trusted him to defend them from all enemies foreign and domestic – laying down his life for them, if necessary. Instead, he became one of those domestic enemies when he took up arms against his countrymen.

Army Regulations (http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/R600_8_22.pdf) governing award of the Purple Heart are extensive; yet the core requirements are not. To receive the medal, one must be wounded in the line of duty in which physical harm must have been caused to the serviceman or woman inflicted by an enemy combatant. After 9-11, there had been several nuanced questions regarding rather the medal could be given for wounds sustained domestically. DOD amended the Purple Heart award criteria to make it possible for victims of the Pentagon attack (and any other subsequent victims of domestic terrorist attack) to receive the medal. To view the full March 18, 2011 Memorandum (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2011_07.pdf) from the Secretary of the Army that addresses this topic, click here (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2011_07.pdf): Regarding the recent denial of the medal to Ft. Hood massacre victims, the most important part of the memo reads: “Approval of the Purple Heart requires the following factors…wound, injury or death must have been the result of an enemy or hostile act, international terrorist attack, or friendly fire…”
Some politicians and Army officials are not convinced that the tragedy at Ft. Hood should be caused terrorism. Instead, the Pentagon is officially calling the Ft. Hood incident “workplace violence (http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/fort-hood-shooting-victims-want-attack-called-terror-1.193553).” To view the complete Stars and Stripes story, click here (http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/fort-hood-shooting-victims-want-attack-called-terror-1.193553):
The Senate’s February 2011 report (http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf?attempt=2) on the shooting took 83 pages to find increasingly more technical and creative ways to say that Hassan was a “ticking time bomb” of anti-American sentiment that should have been removed from the military years before he arrived at Ft. Hood. To read the report, click here (http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf?attempt=2): During 2003-2008, then Captain Hassan did his residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center then completed a fellowship with the Uniformed Services University of Heath Sciences. The Senate Report reveals that during that time Hassan explained that he did not believe he could engage in combat against or support combat against his fellow Muslims. He was told that he could resign and “just say goodbye” at any point. He refused. His first draft for his final presentation to graduate from the fellowship known as “Grand Rounds” was full of justifications for jihad from a Muslim perspective citing verses from the Qur’an, defenses for Bin Laden’s statements condemning the West for killing Muslims in combat, and a host of offensive anti-American language. He was told to revise the presentation if he wanted to graduate. Even his revisions included much of the same anti-Western rhetoric. The Residency program director opposed Hassan’s graduation and called Hasan “very lazy” and a “religious fanatic.” His final presentation even stated that one risk of having Muslims in the military was the real threat of fratricidal behavior and justified terrorism using verses from the Qur’an. During another presentation, Hassan even admitted publically that he personally believed that his loyalty to Islamic Law and tradition superseded his oath to uphold the Constitution. Just 2 minutes into the presentation, he said that he believed that Bin Laden’s positions could be justified from a Muslim perspective and he expressed empathy for Muslims who were expressing their faith in violent, extreme, and jihadist ways. He was asked to sit down after his classmates, many of whom outranked him, objected. Yet, in 2008, Hassan not only graduated, but was promoted to Major and sent to Ft. Hood.
The March 29 Reuters report (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-usa-crime-forthood-idUSBRE92S0IW20130329) explains that Army legal spokesmen have admitted that the primary reason the army is refusing to award the medals to the victims or call the attack terrorism is to safeguard the presumed innocence of Hassan prior to conviction at court martial. To view the Reuters story, click here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-usa-crime-forthood-idUSBRE92S0IW20130329): According to Killeen Daily Herald (http://kdhnews.com/military/hasan_trial/judge-keeps-hasan-from-pleading-guilty/article_aa7d3df0-91d4-11e2-bfe2-0019bb30f31a.html), located just a few miles from Ft. Hood, the judge in the Hassan case, Col. Tara Osborn, has refused to accept Hassan’s confession to all 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. The Colonel insists that because the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, she cannot accept Hassan’s admission of guilt or plea of guilty to any lesser charge and insists that this capital case proceed to court martial. The next pretrial hearing is scheduled for April 16, 2013. To view the complete story, click here (http://kdhnews.com/military/hasan_trial/judge-keeps-hasan-from-pleading-guilty/article_aa7d3df0-91d4-11e2-bfe2-0019bb30f31a.html):
In short, Hassan killed and wounded his countrymen because he believes that was his religious duty. Now, the government of the people whose lives he took; will not even accept his confession to the murders and attempted murders and is forcing what is sure to be a lengthy, costly, controversial trial. That same government also considers Hassan’s legal team’s opportunity to prove that he did not intend to do what he says he intended to do to be of greater worth than simply acknowledging the massacre as an act of terrorism and awarding proper citations to those who died in the service to their country.

The last point in RED makes the difference in my mind. Even if this is classified as workplace violence, it cannot be denied it was friendly fire, as Hassan was a US soldier. So, assuming the DOD memo is current, the Purple Hearts should be awarded to the victims of the Ft. Hood shooting.

Thank you for posting the additional information.

[logroller]

The last point in RED makes the difference in my mind. Even if this is classified as workplace violence, it cannot be denied it was friendly fire, as Hassan was a US soldier. So, assuming the DOD memo is current, the Purple Hearts should be awarded to the victims of the Ft. Hood shooting.

Thank you for posting the additional information.
I think if you examine the elements whereby a friendly fire incident results in the awarding of a Purple Heart, you'll find that the wounds/death must occur during an armed conflict with an enemy and not be inflicted by the enemy. So since Hassan isn't considered to be an enemy, there was no enemy in conflict. Its stupid, I know. But it is a creation of congress, so.....

[Robert A Whit]

I think if you examine the elements whereby a friendly fire incident results in the awarding of a Purple Heart, you'll find that the wounds/death must occur during an armed conflict with an enemy and not be inflicted by the enemy. So since Hassan isn't considered to be an enemy, there was no enemy in conflict. Its stupid, I know. But it is a creation of congress, so.....

He is not an enemy? Not a terrorist?

Interesting point of view. Apparently you did not study the entire article I posted.

What is wrong is that thisi was not dealt with by the Army as it should have been but the FBI and presumably Obama poked their noses into this.

The Army shoots traitors. Well did until democrats had a say.

Who recalls the soldier shot in WWII by a US Army execution detail?

Private Eddie Slovik! Ike approved his death.

BTW, he was no traitor and had not killed anybody. He wanted to live so abandoned his army group, in other words, desertion.

This Army Major may have realized how friendly Obama was to evil muslims and figured he might get a promotion.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He is not an enemy? Not a terrorist?
This Army Major may have realized how friendly Obama was to evil muslims and figured he might get a promotion.

Funny and a possibility too...:beer:--Tyr

[logroller]

He is not an enemy? Not a terrorist?
Not legally! Legally he's an officer in the us army awaiting trial by court martial for 13 counts of premeditated murder. Do atleast try to separate fact from conclusion.

Interesting point of view. Apparently you did not study the entire article I posted.
Nor you the entirety of the ucmj code I posted, upon which my point of view is founded.

What is wrong is that thisi was not dealt with by the Army as it should have been but the FBI and presumably Obama poked their noses into this.
Are you talkin about the communications before the fact or the event itself? I haven't heard that the FBI investigated the attack itself. Based on the fact it is being tried under ucmj, any FBI /DOJ involvement would be at the request of, and subordinate to the Army and DoD per ucmj code and a directive issues under Reagan..presumably.:poke:


The Army shoots traitors. Well did until democrats had a say.
I believe hanging was more commonplace.


Who recalls the soldier shot in WWII by a US Army execution detail?

Private Eddie Slovik! Ike approved his death.

BTW, he was no traitor and had not killed anybody. He wanted to live so abandoned his army group, in other words, desertion.

Truly an exceptional occurrence. Thanks for sharing. Do you know why no one was executed under ucmj after 1961 when the case that ruled it unconstitutional wasnt decided until 1983?


This Army Major may have realized how friendly Obama was to evil muslims and figured he might get a promotion.
If such could be proven to have been a motive, he'd likely be deemed mentally unfit for trial. How ya like them apples?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

U.S. Army Calls Terrorism Work-Place Violence and Denies Slain Servicemen Purple Hearts
By Joe Calandra (http://www.libertynews.com/author/joseph/)
Published: April 1, 2013 1 (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynews.com%2F2013%2F04% 2Fu-s-army-calls-terrorism-work-place-violence-and-denies-slain-servicemen-purple-hearts%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Fpurple-300x240.jpg&description=U.S.%20Army%20Calls%20Terrorism%20Work-Place%20Violence%20and%20Denies%20Slain%20Servicem en%20Purple%20Hearts)
http://www.libertynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/no-purple-heart-300x300.jpg

When I heard that the Army decided to deny Purple Hearts to the victims of Major Nidal Malik Hassan’s Ft. Hood shooting spree, I was on my way to the Easter service at church. As a U.S.A.F. veteran, I could not comprehend why DOD officials would pour this much salt in the wounds of the surviving victims and outrage the families of those who fell in the massacre which left 13 soldiers/civil servants dead and another 32 wounded. Easter is a time in which many people across the globe focus on the message that a man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends. Hassan, an American citizen, native Virginian, and U.S. Army officer, betrayed a sacred trust on Nov 5, 2009 and took the lives of 13 people and wounded another 32 who trusted him to defend them from all enemies foreign and domestic – laying down his life for them, if necessary. Instead, he became one of those domestic enemies when he took up arms against his countrymen.

Army Regulations (http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/R600_8_22.pdf) governing award of the Purple Heart are extensive; yet the core requirements are not. To receive the medal, one must be wounded in the line of duty in which physical harm must have been caused to the serviceman or woman inflicted by an enemy combatant. After 9-11, there had been several nuanced questions regarding rather the medal could be given for wounds sustained domestically. DOD amended the Purple Heart award criteria to make it possible for victims of the Pentagon attack (and any other subsequent victims of domestic terrorist attack) to receive the medal. To view the full March 18, 2011 Memorandum (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2011_07.pdf) from the Secretary of the Army that addresses this topic, click here (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2011_07.pdf): Regarding the recent denial of the medal to Ft. Hood massacre victims, the most important part of the memo reads: “Approval of the Purple Heart requires the following factors…wound, injury or death must have been the result of an enemy or hostile act, international terrorist attack, or friendly fire…”
Some politicians and Army officials are not convinced that the tragedy at Ft. Hood should be caused terrorism. Instead, the Pentagon is officially calling the Ft. Hood incident “workplace violence (http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/fort-hood-shooting-victims-want-attack-called-terror-1.193553).” To view the complete Stars and Stripes story, click here (http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/fort-hood-shooting-victims-want-attack-called-terror-1.193553):
The Senate’s February 2011 report (http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf?attempt=2) on the shooting took 83 pages to find increasingly more technical and creative ways to say that Hassan was a “ticking time bomb” of anti-American sentiment that should have been removed from the military years before he arrived at Ft. Hood. To read the report, click here (http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf?attempt=2): During 2003-2008, then Captain Hassan did his residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center then completed a fellowship with the Uniformed Services University of Heath Sciences. The Senate Report reveals that during that time Hassan explained that he did not believe he could engage in combat against or support combat against his fellow Muslims. He was told that he could resign and “just say goodbye” at any point. He refused. His first draft for his final presentation to graduate from the fellowship known as “Grand Rounds” was full of justifications for jihad from a Muslim perspective citing verses from the Qur’an, defenses for Bin Laden’s statements condemning the West for killing Muslims in combat, and a host of offensive anti-American language. He was told to revise the presentation if he wanted to graduate. Even his revisions included much of the same anti-Western rhetoric. The Residency program director opposed Hassan’s graduation and called Hasan “very lazy” and a “religious fanatic.” His final presentation even stated that one risk of having Muslims in the military was the real threat of fratricidal behavior and justified terrorism using verses from the Qur’an. During another presentation, Hassan even admitted publically that he personally believed that his loyalty to Islamic Law and tradition superseded his oath to uphold the Constitution. Just 2 minutes into the presentation, he said that he believed that Bin Laden’s positions could be justified from a Muslim perspective and he expressed empathy for Muslims who were expressing their faith in violent, extreme, and jihadist ways. He was asked to sit down after his classmates, many of whom outranked him, objected. Yet, in 2008, Hassan not only graduated, but was promoted to Major and sent to Ft. Hood.
The March 29 Reuters report (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-usa-crime-forthood-idUSBRE92S0IW20130329) explains that Army legal spokesmen have admitted that the primary reason the army is refusing to award the medals to the victims or call the attack terrorism is to safeguard the presumed innocence of Hassan prior to conviction at court martial. To view the Reuters story, click here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-usa-crime-forthood-idUSBRE92S0IW20130329): According to Killeen Daily Herald (http://kdhnews.com/military/hasan_trial/judge-keeps-hasan-from-pleading-guilty/article_aa7d3df0-91d4-11e2-bfe2-0019bb30f31a.html), located just a few miles from Ft. Hood, the judge in the Hassan case, Col. Tara Osborn, has refused to accept Hassan’s confession to all 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. The Colonel insists that because the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, she cannot accept Hassan’s admission of guilt or plea of guilty to any lesser charge and insists that this capital case proceed to court martial. The next pretrial hearing is scheduled for April 16, 2013. To view the complete story, click here (http://kdhnews.com/military/hasan_trial/judge-keeps-hasan-from-pleading-guilty/article_aa7d3df0-91d4-11e2-bfe2-0019bb30f31a.html):
In short, Hassan killed and wounded his countrymen because he believes that was his religious duty. Now, the government of the people whose lives he took; will not even accept his confession to the murders and attempted murders and is forcing what is sure to be a lengthy, costly, controversial trial. That same government also considers Hassan’s legal team’s opportunity to prove that he did not intend to do what he says he intended to do to be of greater worth than simply acknowledging the massacre as an act of terrorism and awarding proper citations to those who died in the service to their country.

A VERY INTERESTING AND WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE. THANKS FOR POSTING IT..
SHOWS THE THINKING THAT SO COMMON ABOUT GIVING ISLAMISTS A PASS.
They gave that pass to this scum and he did exactly what we in the know knew he would. Too damn bad that the azzhats giving him THAT PASS were not in his line of fire IMHO. I simply hate ignorant bastards like that.-Tyr

[logroller]

U.S. Army Calls Terrorism Work-Place Violence and Denies Slain Servicemen Purple Hearts
By Joe Calandra (http://www.libertynews.com/author/joseph/)
Published: April 1, 2013 1 (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynews.com%2F2013%2F04% 2Fu-s-army-calls-terrorism-work-place-violence-and-denies-slain-servicemen-purple-hearts%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Fpurple-300x240.jpg&description=U.S.%20Army%20Calls%20Terrorism%20Work-Place%20Violence%20and%20Denies%20Slain%20Servicem en%20Purple%20Hearts)
http://www.libertynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/no-purple-heart-300x300.jpg

...
In short, Hassan killed and wounded his countrymen because he believes that was his religious duty. Now, the government of the people whose lives he took; will not even accept his confession to the murders and attempted murders and is forcing what is sure to be a lengthy, costly, controversial trial. That same government also considers Hassan’s legal team’s opportunity to prove that he did not intend to do what he says he intended to do to be of greater worth than simply acknowledging the massacre as an act of terrorism and awarding proper citations to those who died in the service to their country.
Robert, et al
Would you support accepting Hassan's confession, knowing that execution would be off the table, in order to expedite the case and speed the process of awarding Purple Hearts?

[Robert A Whit]

Robert, et al
Would you support accepting Hassan's confession, knowing that execution would be off the table, in order to expedite the case and speed the process of awarding Purple Hearts?

I don't understand how that takes strapping him to the steel bars of his prison cage, and gutting him, off the table. Work the gutting knife in kind of slow at first. Taking, oh maybe an hour or more to do the deed.

I think you get the idea of how I feel about a killer, sworn to uphold the constitution who mass murdered loyal Army troops.

[logroller]

I don't understand how that takes strapping him to the steel bars of his prison cage, and gutting him, off the table. Work the gutting knife in kind of slow at first. Taking, oh maybe an hour or more to do the deed.

I think you get the idea of how I feel about a killer, sworn to uphold the constitution who mass murdered loyal Army troops.
its all Bush's fault:poke:
On December 28, 2001, President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 ("NDAA"). Section 582 added Article 25a to the Uniform Code of Military Justice
("UCMJ"). It states:
In a case in which the accused may be sentenced to a penalty of death, the number of members shall be not less than 12, unless 12 members are not reasonably available because of physical conditions or military exigencies, in which case the convening authority shall specify a lesser number of members not less than five, and the court may be assembled and the trial held with not less than the number of members so specified. In such a case, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating why a greater number of members were not reasonably available.2

[logroller]

Do you understand now Robert?

[Robert A Whit]

its all Bush's fault:poke:
On December 28, 2001, President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 ("NDAA"). Section 582 added Article 25a to the Uniform Code of Military Justice
("UCMJ"). It states:
In a case in which the accused may be sentenced to a penalty of death, the number of members shall be not less than 12, unless 12 members are not reasonably available because of physical conditions or military exigencies, in which case the convening authority shall specify a lesser number of members not less than five, and the court may be assembled and the trial held with not less than the number of members so specified. In such a case, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating why a greater number of members were not reasonably available.2

That has no bearing on this argument.

Tell me, have you held the UCMJ in your hands? Have you prepared documents against troops due to it's articles?

If you have, then you did as I did.

This terrorist should not be handled by the FBI nor the Admin until the trial in military court ends. The Chain of command reviews these so the Scum still has a chance he won't be gutted or mauled by wolverines were it up to me.

The issue is that those in the Pentagon and the trade center who got killed / wounded got purple hearts.

This is a poor way to treat active duty military so no, I don't think what Obama is doing is decent.

GW Bush made sure those who deserved purple hearts due to 911 got theirs.

This Major is a traitor.

Slovik got shot to death and all he did was run.

[Kathianne]

http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/04/01/purple-hearts-to-hassans-victims/?singlepage=true


The Claim that Awarding Purple Hearts to Hasan’s Victims Would Prejudice His Murder Trial Is Ridiculous
Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy On April 1, 2013


What fact do you suppose is better known: (a) that Nidal Hasan has been incarcerated since he killed 13 American soldiers and wounded several others while screaming, “Allahu Akbar!” in the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, or (b) that his victims were denied Purple Heart medals by the U.S. government?


Obviously, by leaps and bounds, the answer is (a). And for this reason, among several others, it is patently disgraceful that the Obama administration and its minions in the hyper-politically correct Pentagon brass are denying those soldiers shot by Hasan the military honors they are due — long overdue, actually – from having been wounded by an enemy operative in a wartime terrorist attack.


Speciously, military prosecutors are arguing that granting Purple Heart awards to the wounded victims would somehow prejudice Major Hasan’s upcoming trial because it would be tantamount to a branch of the government rendering a judgment that he is a terrorist and therefore already criminally culpable. The White House’s hacks at the Defense Department — both uniformed and non-uniformed — are reportedly (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/30/defense-department-says-giving-purple-heart-to-fort-hood-survivors-would-hurt/) trying to run this same jive by lawmakers, several of whom are incensed by the slight to the wounded. If they are capable of shame, administration officials ought to be ashamed by this frivolous claim, which dishonors not only Hasan’s victims but also the military justice system itself.


It has always been the proud boast of the military justice system that a truly innocent person has a better chance of being acquitted there than in the civilian system. That is because military trials are typically decided by panels of commissioned officers. For them, there is a solemnity about following orders that is unmatched by cross-sections of the general public who serve as petit jurors in civilian trials.


The military judge will instruct the panel that the case is to be decided solely based on the evidence presented in court – specifically, whether it establishes the elements of the offenses charged against Hasan. The jurors will be directed that they are not to decide the case based on outside publicity or any findings already made by other government officials – including in probes by the armed forces. In the trial, it will be for the panel alone, based on its assessment of the testimony and other evidence presented in court, to decide whether Hasan is guilty. There is a presumption in both the civilian and military systems that juries follow those instructions. We can have full confidence that, in the military system, the panel will honor the instructions of the court.


The administration-driven suggestion that the panel hearing Hasan’s case will be swayed by the awarding — or, for that matter, the non-awarding — of Purple Hearts is a slander on the military justice system. It is tantamount to saying we should presume that officers of the United States armed forces will defy their orders – which would itself be a profound offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


Put law and honor aside for a moment, though. The Purple Heart argument is risible as a matter of common sense. Until a few days ago, no one was even thinking about Purple Hearts, much less that there was a controversy over them. Yet virtually everyone who knows anything about the Fort Hood jihadist attack knows that — like many aggressors charged with murder in American courts — Hasan has been detained without bail because of both the dangerousness he manifestly poses to the community and the flight risk his palpable guilt implies (notwithstanding his paralysis). Furthermore, there has been far more publicity (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/03/ap-judge-wont-let-fort-hood-suspect-nidal-hasan-plead-guilty-032013/) about the fact that Hasan’s attorneys represented that Hasan was prepared to plead guilty on at least some of the charges than about the Purple Heart issue.


It is thus absurd to suggest that the award of Purple Hearts to Hasan’s victims would be incurably prejudicial to the military court’s ability to give Hasan a fair trial but, somehow, that his pretrial detention for four years and his desire to admit guilt would not.


In reality, none of these matters should affect the trial in the slightest. In a criminal trial, the conclusions of other fact-finders about matters relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused are inadmissible. This is because, in our system, the verdict must be rendered by the jury. Trial judges thus make every effort to keep conclusions by outside factfinders from the jurors — just as jurors are constantly told to avoid reading media accounts about the case.


Of course, juries will often know or learn about extrajudicial factfinding anyway. After all, a defendant would not be standing trial in the first place unless government lawyers had determined he was guilty (it is unethical to prosecute otherwise). There would also be no trial unless a grand jury (or its military equivalent, an Article 32 investigative body) had been persuaded that there was sufficient cause to indict.


Moreover, it is often very obvious that defendants on trial — especially in a murder trial — are incarcerated. Invariably, there is heavy security in the courtroom; sometimes the trial testimony touches on things that happened in jail, unavoidably bringing the defendant’s detention to the fore; and sometimes the lawyers or the defendant himself will blurt out something that makes it clear that the defendant, though presumed innocent, is in custody and thus, in a sense, being treated as if he is already guilty.


Juries, however, are always instructed to ignore these things and decide the case based solely on their own assessment of the proof. The law presumes that jurors follow these instructions — and experience shows that jurors tend to weigh the evidence carefully in deliberations and to acquit where the evidence is weak. And again, military officers on a panel must be trusted to follow legal instructions not to factor in conclusions by outside investigators — the awarding of Purple Hearts to Hasan’s victims no more proves his guilt than the denial of Purple Hearts proves his innocence.


Most preposterous of all to this former prosecutor is the military’s silly assertion that awarding the Purple Heart to Hasan’s victims would enable Hasan’s lawyers to claim prejudice. Much of what prosecutors do in litigation involves responding to frivolous defense motions – that’s the job. Claims that defense lawyers now have no real chance of succeeding routinely get posited anyway, for two reasons: (a) Defense counsel seed the appellate record with any conceivable reason to get a conviction overturned (if counsel fails to raise a matter, it is deemed waived, so the lawyer’s incentive is to raise everything); and (b) defense counsel realize that, if the defendant is convicted, they will inevitably be accused of having performed incompetently – by making lots of motions, even weak ones, counsel help the reviewing court conclude that counsel provided zealous defense.


If I were a government lawyer, I’d be licking my chops to respond to defense lawyers who were claiming prejudice based on awarding Purple Hearts to the victims. Not only are the victims extraordinarily sympathetic – and some of them performed heroically. Remember that we’re talking here about a “Purple Hearts are prejudicial” claim being advanced by lawyers who themselves have already announced that Hasan wanted to plead guilty. Many litigation arguments are stressful. For a prosecutor, that one would be fun.


Hasan was an international terrorist plant who infiltrated our military and killed and wounded our troops in an atrocity that claimed many more lives than the jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. He was not merely a domestic imitator of al Qaeda; he was in frequent communication with Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki was a significant al Qaeda operative according to the Obama administration. That’s why the president authorized his killing — which would be a murder if it were not justified by Awlaki’s status as an enemy combatant under the laws of war.


Palpably, what Hasan executed, with Awlaki’s encouragement, was a jihadist atrocity — one that precisely targeted American armed forces personnel who were about to deploy to war zones to fight Hasan’s fellow jihadists.


To be sure, Hasan’s situation is highly embarrassing for the government. His communications with Awlaki were well-known to government officials. (And need we be reminded of Awlaki’s own communications with Pentagon officials? Of the FBI and Justice Department’s decision to release him after 9/11?) The failure to investigate Hasan competently and prevent him from being in a position to attack American troops was a gargantuan blunder; the effort to cover it up by labeling a jihadist attack as “workplace violence” has been even more offensive.


The awarding of Purple Hearts to Hasan’s victims would carry an implied acknowledgement by the government of its abysmal performance. But it would have nothing to do with, and no meaningful effect on, Hasan’s murder trial. For the administration to claim otherwise is fraudulent.



If you don't know who Andrew McCarthy is, look him up.

[logroller]

That has no bearing on this argument.

It does. But it is damning to your argument. So you best dismiss it.

Tell me, have you held the UCMJ in your hands? Have you prepared documents against troops due to it's articles?

If you have, then you did as I did.
No; but i did stay in a holiday inn express once. There was a phone book there I held, used it to locate a number. I then input the number using a tonal keyboard device, triggering a series of interlinked switchboard networks. So I'm pretty much an expert on telecommunications. Putting my expertise to good use, I accessed a digital copy of the ucmj on the interwebs.

So you've drafted legal documents pursuant to a trial by court martial, in accordance with due process....then you know that a defendent is presumed innocent until proven guilty....Oh wait-- no you don't. God help any system of justice that you have been responsible for administering.


This terrorist should not be handled by the FBI nor the Admin until the trial in military court ends.
It is being handled according to ucmj, the Army under authority of the DoD, not the DoJ/FBI. The "administration", ie the White House is the head of all of these agencies/departments.
http://html.cita.illinois.edu/text/info/images/ex-org1.gif

The Chain of command reviews these so the Scum still has a chance he won't be gutted or mauled by wolverines were it up to me.

the chain of command reviews these in accordance with statutory rules/laws. Perhaps you could find some mention of gutting and wolverines in that handy dandy copy of ucmj you're supposedly familiar with.


The issue is that those in the Pentagon and the trade center who got killed / wounded got purple hearts.
Irrelevant. Those people weren't killed by a fellow service member who was awaiting trial.


This is a poor way to treat active duty military so no, I don't think what Obama is doing is decent.
So you would favor giving Hassan life, not execution in order to treat the active duty members less poorly? Would that be more decent?


GW Bush made sure those who deserved purple hearts due to 911 got theirs.
Was there an ongoing court martial over those attacks that he risked compromising?


This Major is a traitor.
Allegedly. Take a look at the ucmj and see if there is a presumption of guilt.


Slovik got shot to death and all he did was run. did he get a Purple Heart? :laugh:

[logroller]

http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/04/01/purple-hearts-to-hassans-victims/?singlepage=true



If you don't know who Andrew McCarthy is, look him up.
Im just gonna guess that he's a conservative legal pundit looking to profiteer spreading his personal beliefs and disdain for the Obama administration. What he's not is the prosecutor actually trying the case; so he could care less whether issuing an award has the de jure effect of presuming that Hassan is an enemy of the United States, and yet still expect the jurists to presume his innocence. He knows it too I bet; but that posit doesn't sell well nor further his interest in public vitriol over Obama.

[Robert A Whit]

Im just gonna guess that he's a conservative legal pundit looking to profiteer spreading his personal beliefs and disdain for the Obama administration. What he's not is the prosecutor actually trying the case; so he could care less whether issuing an award has the de jure effect of presuming that Hassan is an enemy of the United States, and yet still expect the jurists to presume his innocence. He knows it too I bet; but that posit doesn't sell well nor further his interest in public vitriol over Obama.

Wait, do you mean to say that when KSM has his day in court, Obama will go yank away all those purple hearts handed out due to 911?

[logroller]

Wait, do you mean to say that when KSM has his day in court, Obama will go yank away all those purple hearts handed out due to 911?
Cheese on toast? Is ksm an officer in the US army?

[Robert A Whit]

Cheese on toast? Is ksm an officer in the US army?

So, being an officer allows him priviledges to kill fellow troops and deprive loyal soldiers their purple hearts. Gee, now I know.


Eddie Slovik wore the uniform up to the day he got shot to death.


http://youtu.be/CUKEupQbqj8

[logroller]

So, being an officer allows him priviledges to kill fellow troops and deprive loyal soldiers their purple hearts. Gee, now I know.


Eddie Slovik wore the uniform up to the day he got shot to death.
No. Being an active service member, an officer no less, affords him a fair trial by court martial and, accordingly, a presumption of innocence. Why do you hate due process so much? You sound like a tyrant.

[Robert A Whit]

No. Being an active service member, an officer no less, affords him a fair trial by court martial and, accordingly, a presumption of innocence. Why do you hate due process so much? You sound like a tyrant.

Yup and my sin is wanting those shot awarded the purple heart. I am cruel.


http://youtu.be/CUKEupQbqj8

[logroller]

Yup and my sin is wanting those shot awarded the purple heart. I am cruel.

Cruel? more like vengeful if anything, but not really. Your unwillingness to take execution off the table demonstrates that you aren't really focused as much on Purple Hearts as you are seeing Hassan die for his crimes. That's fine in my book; as I think both will occur, (he will be sentenced to death and those slain will receive their due merit) but the awards will come after he's convicted, discharged and thenceforth classified as an enemy of the US.

[Robert A Whit]

Cruel? more like vengeful if anything, but not really. Your unwillingness to take execution off the table demonstrates that you aren't really focused as much on Purple Hearts as you are seeing Hassan die for his crimes. That's fine in my book; as I think both will occur, (he will be sentenced to death and those slain will receive their due merit) but the awards will come after he's convicted, discharged and thenceforth classified as an enemy of the US.

Have you taken execution off the table?

Don't go of on me until you take it off the table.

Wait, we have nothing to say about it.

My main complaint is no purple hearts for the wounded or kia.

[logroller]

Have you taken execution off the table?
Clearly I have not, nor do i believe it should be. But I'm not obsessing over Purple Hearts not having been awarded either.


Don't go of on me until you take it off the table.
I'm not going off on anyone then; but then again, I'm not obsessing over the handling of Fort Hood twisting every justification into tangential blather. You are. I offered a possible solution to expediting the award of Purple Hearts, but it has a caveat that I don't believe is worth it.

Wait, we have nothing to say about it.
So you don't have anything to say about Hassan being executed for his crimes? What was that vitriol about gutting him and wolverines- a bot? Or you don't have anything to say about the trade off for expediting the award of Purple Hearts? Of course you don't; because when faced with making a tough decision, you're eerily silent.

My main complaint is no purple hearts for the wounded or kia.
Yet. No Purple Hearts for the wounded and killed, yet! Because it has yet to be determined (legally) that the deaths and wounds were inflicted by an enemy. You have jumped to a conclusion that, while correct, has not been determined in a court of law. My main point is justice will be served, those involved will receive what they are due, but there's a process to be followed.having been in the military, I would think you would understand that. And quite frankly, those who currently serve are legally bound to respect it. Hassan signed his own death warrant when he failed to do just that. Grow out that beard pal, might as well lock and load for the firing squad.

[jimnyc]

Give him the death penalty and don't give it a second thought. Through technicalities it may be listed a certain way, but the whole world knows what this guy was up to and who he communicated with - and these soldiers get a purple heart, whether they have the medal in their hand or not.

[Robert A Whit]

Clearly I have not, nor do i believe it should be. But I'm not obsessing over Purple Hearts not having been awarded either.


I'm not going off on anyone then; but then again, I'm not obsessing over the handling of Fort Hood twisting every justification into tangential blather. You are. I offered a possible solution to expediting the award of Purple Hearts, but it has a caveat that I don't believe is worth it.

So you don't have anything to say about Hassan being executed for his crimes? What was that vitriol about gutting him and wolverines- a bot? Or you don't have anything to say about the trade off for expediting the award of Purple Hearts? Of course you don't; because when faced with making a tough decision, you're eerily silent.

Yet. No Purple Hearts for the wounded and killed, yet! Because it has yet to be determined (legally) that the deaths and wounds were inflicted by an enemy. You have jumped to a conclusion that, while correct, has not been determined in a court of law. My main point is justice will be served, those involved will receive what they are due, but there's a process to be followed.having been in the military, I would think you would understand that. And quite frankly, those who currently serve are legally bound to respect it. Hassan signed his own death warrant when he failed to do just that. Grow out that beard pal, might as well lock and load for the firing squad.

Oh RATS

This still going on?