Legislation for AR and TX shootings Purple Heart again
Yeah, this is kind of old/new news, but once again Congress is thinking about passing legislation that would qualify the survivors and the fallen of the Fort Hood, Texas and Little Rock Arkansas shootings for the award of the Purple Heart, according to the Washington Times;
Top lawmakers on Capitol Hill are challenging the U.S. military to rethink how it classifies terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after the Defense Department decided the 2009 attack at Fort Hood and the attack on a recruiting office in Arkansas were domestic killings rather than flash points in the global war on terrorism.
Those classifications mean the dozens who were wounded or killed at Fort Hood, Texas, and those killed or injured in Little Rock, Ark., were not eligible for Purple Heart medals — a ruling that House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman want to change.
They have introduced legislation that would allow domestic attacks on service members to be reviewed the same way as international terrorist attacks when it comes to awarding the Purple Heart, which is the military’s decoration for troops wounded or killed while in combat zones.
Yeah, while I don’t think it will go anywhere, I would sure like to see the debate in this, an election year. And I’d like a list of names of Congress members who think that the terror war has been over since before the Arkansas recruiting station shooting, and I’d like to see the President veto it because those were cases of workplace violence, again in the election year. And that’s probably why it won’t make it out of committee before November, because Harry Reid doesn’t want that on his voting record.
Either way, Democrats loose. If they admit that those shootings of US soldiers on American soil were indeed terrorism, they admit that war has followed them home. If they vote against it, they’re admitting that they refuse to look at the realities of the world.
But I’m sure I misspelled a word somewhere in there that Joe would much rather discuss for a few hundred comments than the failure of the Democrats to see clearly.
Category: Military issues
The criteria for the Purple Heart varies among the services, but here’s the Army criteria: The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States and per 10 USC 1131, effective 19 May 1998, is limited to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving under component authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded— (1) In any action against an enemy of the United States. (2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged. (3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. (4) As the result of an act of any such enemy of opposing Armed Forces. (5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force. (6) After 28 March 1973, as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack. (7) After 28 March 1973, as the result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force. (8) Members killed or wounded in action by friendly fire. In accordance with 10 USC 1129 for award of the Purple Heart, the Secretary of the Army will treat a member of the Armed Forces described in (a), below, in the same manner as a member who is killed or wounded in action as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States. The way it sounds to me, is that the Secretary of the Army can and should be able to grant… Read more »
I think the two attacks are acts of terrorism by definition, and would welcome the debate on award of PHs to the victims. Precedence was set at least from the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.
I wonder though, by saying ” If they admit that those shootings of US soldiers on American soil were indeed terrorism, they admit that war has followed them home”, does that not also implicitly admit that the “fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here” theory has been rendered inert?
I’d say the opposite, CI. We weren’t exactly doing much in the way of “fighting them over there” before the WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the African Embassy Bombings, Khobar Towers, the foiled Millenium Bombing Plot, or 9/11. All of those happened within a roughly 8 1/2-year period, and 6 (9/11 was 4 separate incidents) were on US soil. Since then, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan the number of serious incidents directed against US targets appears to me to have remained constant or declined. IMO, that implies that the terrorists have been forced to concentrate their resources elsewhere rather than use them against CONUS.
I’m sure if a bright company clerk wrote the awards just the right way, they’d get approved. I’m still laughing at some of the awards given out to fobbits in Iraq.
Why does the title of this post say “LA” and TX? I feel like I’m missing something.
One thing I believe for sure is that those men and women more than deserve Purple Hearts.
Sorry, PC, sometimes my fingers move ahead of my brain. Fixed.
LOL. I just thought I was missing something.
1. Declare Hassan a domestic terrorist, strip him of all rights, and ship him to GTMO for disposition.
2. Award them as were hurt or killed the Heart. I think they deserve it.