Army won’t award Purple Hearts to Fort Hood victims
ROS sends a link from Reuters in which the Army explains why it won’t award the Purple Heart, a medal traditionally given to soldiers and Marines wounded in combat, to the victims of jihadist Nidal Hasan on Fort Hood more than three years ago;
The Army in a position paper said that awarding the medal to those wounded and posthumously to those killed in the November 2009 attack would ‘set the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist’ because the medal is presented to military members who are ‘wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States.’
“U.S. military personnel are organized, trained and equipped to combat foreign, not domestic, forces or threats,” the Army wrote. “To expand the Purple Heart award criteria to include domestic criminal acts or domestic terror attacks would be a dramatic departure from the traditional Purple Heart award criteria.”
In other words, they’re sticking to the administration’s contention that Hasan’s brutal attack on soldiers preparing for their deployment to combat is nothing more than workplace violence. His motivations were influenced by a terrorist in Yemen who urged him to fight a jihad against his fellow soldiers. His intentions were to disrupt their deployment to the war. Hasan attacked unarmed soldiers intending to create terror in the community. The war came home, and politicians are trying to cover up that fact with twisted and mangled words. And Big Army falls in line.
Category: Big Army, Terror War
I heard this early on Fox News. This makes me sick. To suggest that Hassan is not the enemy, particularly after his communications with the head of terroists operation in Yemen (Arabian Penn), tells me that the White House still and always will deny the existance of our determined foes.
I do not believe this came from DoD … I believe the White House (or the DoJ) made this determination.
The families should roll up their sleeves … and fight this tooth and nail in accordance with the rules of laws. They will win.
The immediate rebuttal to that atrocious and dishonorable “position paper” should be this:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC*; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
*Emphasis mine.
I’m at a loss for the words to describe how cowardly this is.
What are people suing the DOD for, anyways?
So, what happens if open combat begins on US soil, within US boundaries, by a foreign/domestic enemy (take your pick)?
I’m in a yes/no, agree/disagree state. If the PH is awarded to these people, that gives Hassan the satisfaction of being declared a terrorist and a jihadist. If not, then it remains ‘workplace violence’ and he does not get the nomenclature he was seeking, although it could be reversed once he’s been executed.
He IS going to get Deep Sixed, right?
The Army said “expand the Purple Heart award criteria to include domestic criminal acts or domestic terror attacks …”
Umm .. . didn’t they just say that it was a domestic TERROR attack?
When is terror not terror?
He was a Soldier when he did, ideology against ours or not. It was friendly fire. The Purple Heart is for being wounded by enemy fire, not friendly fire. What would be next? Giving purple hearts for people who get hurt in training accidents?
While it would set president for any future domestic attacks, if this is shot down, do victims of “insider” attacks in afgan get declared ineligible for the PH?
friendly fire is something else, it is accidental shootings by friendly forces. there is nothing friendly about someone turning a gun intentionally on those who thought him their comrad. wearing the uniform does not make any act against other soldiers “friendly”. to declare this as friendly fire only serves to demonstrate an authors bias and closed mind. I served for 4 years in the airborne infantry, if i take up arms against my country now and kill other soldiers, is that friendly fire?
@7
Pretty sure you’re wrong. I’ll have to double check, but I seem to remember that it can (and is) awarded for wounds received by “friendly fire.”
it depends on the circumstances of the friendly fire. Pat Tillman received a PH when he was shot due to the mission they were engaged on.
knew a retard once that had an AD on our fob and shot another guy in the leg. victim here didnt get a PH because his wound wasnt received in conflict with the enemy
The uniformed personnel killed or wounded at Pearl Harbor received the Purple Heart. If I’m not mistaken, those killed or wounded at the Pentagon on 9/11 did as well. I fail to see how this is any different. The casualties of Fort Hood should be awarded the Purple Heart, as should the soldiers who were shot and killed outside a recruiting station in Little Rock by an Islamic fundamentalist.
I simply see this as another “Spit on the Veterans” decree from B. Hussein 0bama & Co..
Gravel, you are correct – to a point. The Purple Heart can indeed be awarded for friendly fire incidents, but not all friendly fire incidents qualify. Those incidents must be one where US forces are engaging or attempting to engage the enemy (or, presumably, making a good-faith effort to do so). See AR 600-8-22, para 2-8b(8), and http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2011_07.pdf
The Administration is claiming that Hassan was not an “enemy of the United States” at the time of the attack. Seems to me that claim is obviously absolute bullshit, but that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
Utter bullshit, another ball-less move top appease internal terrorist, by simply labeling them as disgruntled employees.
OK, I get that when one is the object of violence in one’s workplace that it could correctly be termed as workplace violence. Don’t see why that characterization would be important except when tabulating instances of violence in various locations, like maybe on highways, in bathrooms, whatever. (Who really cares if anyone is more likely to be a victim of violence in a household kitchen vs an office, but someone probably does.) Of course, since wherever a soldier is while deployed is his or her workplace, all KIA’s would result from workplace violence, wouldn’t they?
So what?
Get a grip, big Army! These folks were killed and injured by a known terrorist. (What? Now big Army is going to claim that it didn’t know?) It really doesn’t matter where he made his attack, but considering that it was of a bunch of unarmed soldiers on a military installation while said terrorist was shouting exactly why he was committing his act of terrorism should simplify things for you.
Did the Army award PH to those wounded by the Akbar attack in 2003?
Absolute bullshit.
I recall that Purple Hearts were awarded for heat injuries during the Panama Live-Fire Exercise.
We had guys get Purple Hearts in Berlin after the Disco Bombing. Some of those guys were cheating on their wife’s at the time. I don’t see much difference, unless an American terrorist is different than a Libyan terrorist. Gotta love the Army.
Ok, just to play DA here, if the Army awarded the Purple Heart to the wounded from Ft. Hood, that would be an admission that this was indeed an act of war. If they do that, then he is either A) a traitor or B) an enemy infiltrator wearing the opposing uniform. Both of which are considered war crimes, and traditionally punished by death, the latter being traditionally summary battlefield execution.
So, lets discuss what the motive/motives are for considering this an act of ‘workplace violence’. What benefit can this be to the Prosecution? Does it strengthen their case, versus considering this an enemy action on a domestic battlefield? I’m no lawyer, but it seems that either way, he’s up for the death penalty. Outcome A) He’s a traitor/enemy infiltrator or B) He’s guilty of ‘workplace violence’.
Any lawyers out there want to weigh in on this?
Not a lawyer, but I can see their point only if I squint a certain way. Hasan should have been charged with being part of the enemy. It’s an outrage that he wasn’t but everything about this case is an outrage.
That said, this is still B.S. It should not even be required to charge Hasan for aiding the enemy for those soldiers to get Purple Hearts. Terrorists can be called “enemy combatants” based on a *preponderance of the evidence*. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not necessary for holding them. Again, I’m not a lawyer or even a sharp amateur, but that’s the track I would have taken.
This is utterly disgusting. Hasan is factually guilty. The trail isn’t even a question of whether he’s innocent but rather going through the motions to find him legally guilty.
I’m trying to keep blood shooting out of my eyes over how cowardly our country has become for shit like this to happen and be acceptable.
@7 That’s a good question. If someone is in combat and hit by friendly fire, do they receive a Purple Heart? I would think so, but I honestly don’t know.
Having said that, though, these soldiers all deserve Purple Hearts. No doubt in my military mind.
Gee. So a medal that was first awarded during the War of Northern Aggression can not be awarded to member of the Union Army for wounds they suffered at the hands of a traitor?
Here’s a twist. If you go to work one day and shoot up your co-workers I can guarantee that you will be charged with ‘Terrorist Acts’.
@24. “If you go to work one day and shoot up your co-workers I can guarantee that you will be charged with ‘Terrorist Acts’.”
One doesn’t have to go that far at all. As was recounted here months ago, a Guardsman of questionable judgment was charged with a terroristic act merely for running NEAR a school that was not yet open while carrying a TOY gun.
“U.S. military personnel are organized, trained and equipped to combat foreign, not domestic, forces or threats,” the Army wrote. “To expand the Purple Heart award criteria to include domestic criminal acts or domestic terror attacks would be a dramatic departure from the traditional Purple Heart award criteria.”
The 9/11 events were domestic terror attacks, so anyone at the Pentagon killed or wounded awarded Purple Hearts?
I’m wondering if there is a flip side to this:
Consider the backlash brewing for OBL’s brother being tried in civilian court. Try him as an enemy combatant (oops, I forgot- we’re not using that term anymore), or a terrorist, and the the legal circus really kicks into high gear. How to try, where to try, does the Army qualify for jurisdiction, etc, etc, etc. All the while he gets to sit in his chair, growing his beard, laughing at us behind the stupefied gaze.
Further, does *this* Administration want to be responsible for trying Hassan direct through the DOJ? Hell no. While in the pit of my stomach I think there are certain elements who would jump at the chance to ineptitude this man into a severe miscarriage of justice, the risk of the ultimate reveal of loyalties is too much of a risk.
Surprised the Army is actually following regs for once. Last time I checked Fort Worth, Texas wasn’t on the list of combat zones. But if the PH meant anything these days, this would be something to get up-in-arms about. Sadly this isn’t. The fact that Hasan is still years to be had from any conviction, let alone execution for treason, should be.
Just do not stand in the way of the drone medals and things will be just fine though.
The WH wants to maintain that Ft. Hood was an act of “workplace violence” because Barry is soft on fascist Islamists – and that is clearly apparrent after the last several years, both at home and in the support he’s been giving overseas.
I’m starting to think he is one, too.
Reply to:
ItAllFades Says:
March 30th, 2013 at 11:07 am
“He was a Soldier when he did, ideology against ours or not. It was friendly fire. The Purple Heart is for being wounded by enemy fire, not friendly fire. What would be next? Giving purple hearts for people who get hurt in training accidents?”
Right, so every Soldier who is killed by “friendly fire” from Afgan police (Friends) should also be denied the Purple Heart?
I believe that the true bare bones if “injuries due to enemy action” during an attack.