Purple Hearts for Fort Hood victims.
Fox News reports that the Army has decided to award Purple Hearts to the victims of the terrorism at Fort Hood over five years ago.
Three sources confirmed the decision, to be announced by next week. Victims of the 2009 shooting and their families have been pressing the military to award the Purple Heart, and the benefits that come with it, for years.
They got a boost when Congress passed recent funding legislation requiring the Defense Department to reconsider whether the victims qualify for the honor. At the time, a lawyer for victims of the shooting and their families told Fox News that some victims are still so damaged physically and mentally they are unable to work five years after the massacre — and the benefits that come with the Purple Heart would be a lifeline.
About damn time.
Category: Army News
Purple Heart for “workplace violence”? Maybe they are ready to call it what it really was.
And call Hassan the traitor he is, and make his limp-dick ass do the Danny Deever Dance?
I know of guys in ‘nam that got it from “friendly fire” and the only thing they got was a body bag. Sux to be a trooper.
I know I’m probably going to be in the minority on this, but I don’t agree with that decision. Regardless of Hassan’s personal motivations, he was not an enemy combatant. He was a US Army Major. They were not in a warzone, they were in the United States.
So if another Soldier goes on a shooting spree and say his motivation is that he’s Japanese and super pissed at the internment camps from WW2, would his victims also get the PH? Where does it end?
I feel like this is a slippery slope in devaluing the PH. A decade or two from now I wouldn’t be surprised if we are giving them to recruits who stubbed their toe in basic just because they were training to fight our enemies.
I’ll join you on the minority train. I got mine roughing it in Iraq and taking a hit from an IED. I lost a lot of friends in Iraq that only received a PH for their troubles. I have a hard time equating that with some dude shooting up some soldiers on base.
The PH is one medal I never wanted but is now one I am most proud of because to me it represents the sacrifice my brothers and I made knowing that death was possible. You went about your day staring death in the face and if you made it out you were ecstatic.
I suppose I am not looking at it objectively since I’m a PH recipient myself, but I would think that those who have earned the PH should be able to voice their opinion. Being KIA or WIA in a foreign country should mean more than a death or wounds on base, in my opinion. This only serves to cheapen the medal’s meaning to me. I’ll still wear mine for those I’ve served with who can’t wear theirs, but I hope this does not open the flood gates for further devaluation.
EdUSMCLeg, I respect our opinion, and I do think that multiple PH recipients have voiced their opinion on this matter. With a group running into the 10,000’s I’m certain that there will be different viewpoints.
So, do you believe that the servicemembers killed in the Pentagon on 9/11 shouldn’t have been awarded the PH either, as they were inside the US?
Mr. Hassan was a radicalized traitor, who happened to be serving in our midst. The situation, IMHO, was was no different than a “green on blue” insider attack occuring in Afghanistan.
FWIW and just to be a Devil’s Advocate, I could make an arguement that most of the PHs awarded in Iraq and many in Afghanistan are illegitimate as the folks who emplaced many IEDs were not terrorist or declared enemies of the US, but just folks looking for cash (otherwise known as criminals) and therefore the event didn’t meet the legal standard established by Congress.
The truth is that the world had changed and we are no longer fighting a nation state on a linear battlefield, so there is a little more gray area than there used to be.
I can’t say I agree with that, they are still enemy combatants, even if they are illegal enemy combatants. Did those men that were killed when a muslim US Soldier rolled a grenade in their tent get a PH? Thats a legitimate question btw, as I dont know.
I only brought it up, as there are other cases since 9/11 where servicemembers were killed/injured outside the limites of the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion Area where there was a decision not to award the PH due to considering an incident a criminal act as opposed to being terrorist related. For me its a consistency issue, you can’t use one standard in location A and a different standard in location B. If a service member is shot by an unknown assailant (shooter wasn’t captured or killed), within the CZTE area it was always treated as an enemy action, while in other HF/IDP areas it was assumed to not be until proven otherwise.
I tend to fall on the side of awarding the PH (and the CAB/CAR) rather than not. If the nation send you on a mission and someone intentionally shoots you or targets, you should qualify.
I actually was denied mine for moderate TBI after having my tank blown out from underneath me. My BCT didnt even want to give one to my TC who was full of shrapnel from it. Stating they needed “proof” the shrapnel came from a bomb. They did end up giving him his, but I digress.
but wasn’t he an enemy combatant? we’re not fighting against a nationality, but an ideology. an ideology to which hasan adhered too. he was a terrorist in every sense of the word.
Totally agree with you. I’m glad they finally got this right.
As I’ve said many times in the recent past – the precedent was set in 1986 when the La Belle Disco was bombed in Berlin by Gaddafi’s agents and SSG James Goins was awarded the Purple Heart. William Long and Quinton Ezeagwula also deserve the Purple Heart for the Little Rock, AR recruiting station shooting, too.
Different wars call for different rules. As a proud Purple Heart recipient and very active member of the MOPH, I agree with this decision even though it goes against what MOPH national feels. When brought up at a meeting, every member voted for these troopers to receive the Purple Heart. Crewchiefguy hit the nail on the head. We are fighting an ideology. If you say they don’t deserve one, you have to take away at the very least every PH issued for 9-11. You could even make the argument that except for the Iraqi Army, fighting Isis, the Taliban, Al-Quiada, any of these groups are not nations or “organized military units” of any nationality. Hassan didn’t shoot them because he was sick of his job, or someone tried to fire him. He killed them because he became an enemy combatant no different then the above named terrorist organizations you guys and girls continue to fight today. As fellow PH recipients, I certainly respect your opinion and those of National, but I respectfully disagree. It’s about time!
Cav, another consideration is that it has been reported that Hasan was operating under orders from Anwar al Awlaki, who was at the time operational in Yemen as an Al Qaeda field commander. In my mind that pretty much makes it an act of war/terror.
Another thought: even though they were forced by the Republican Congress into making this change, you watch this slimeball president try to take credit for it.
Forgot to add that thanks to a well-placed Hellfire missile, Awlaki’s sorry ass is now spread in tiny pieces over a couple of acres of the Yemeni landscape.
I agree somewhat with both sides, but I lean more towards give them the PH.
It didn’t happen in a formal combat zone, but like Jonn said, the precedent has already been set.
These people were killed or wounded not because of WHO they were, but because of WHAT they were, American Soldiers.
I think thats good enough to justify the PH, but eother way, those soldiers absolutely deserve any and all benefits that a wounded soldier can receive.
Pink mist is the term that fits his collection of reorganized atomic structure !!!
Yes but at the same time, if I became radicalized by the IRA and decided to go to work and start killing protestant Soldiers (hypothetical only here), would they get a PH? I kind of doubt it.
Well, that depends. When did the IRA declare itself to be at war with the US?
The leader of al Qaeda did precisely that, in writing, back in 1996.
http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/enemy-detention/al-qaeda-declarations
Seems to me that an organization declaring war on the US, then actually attacking us multiple times, qualifies anyone affiliated with or acting in support of that organization as an enemy of the US. Al Qaeda has done precisely that.
To my knowledge, the IRA has not. They may be terrorists, but they’re not currently at war with the US.
If that is the case then, why did the sailors on the Liberty get purple hearts? We were not at war with Israel or any other nation or group in that area.
And the Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico attack in 1979.
http://www.navycthistory.com/sabana_seca_bus_tragedy_1979_1.html
The wounded received Purple Hearts.
And I don’t know the answer to this, but did the USS Libery casualties receive PHs? The Israelis have always said the attack was a mistake.
I know, I should do my research.
USS Liberty did receive PHs.
http://www.ussliberty.org/usnavy.htm
They did.
205 PHs were given to USS Liberty casualties.
http://www.ussliberty.org/usnavy.htm
And how about USS Stark?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident
And USS Cole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
In my most humble opinion, all of these brothers and sisters in all these incidents were deserving of the Purple Heart.
Thanks for bringing that up. The PH’s were awarded very soon there after, and there was not issue, that I can find a record of, of the incident happening on US soil.
“The wounded received Purple Hearts.”
I meant to write “the casualties” rather than “the wounded.” Two shipmates were murdered.
Of course we get an interesting set of contrasts to also realize there were three servicemembers (two Marines, 1 Army) killed in the OKC bombing. I’m a little lost that it is stated to be about the medical cost funding in receiving the award. Shouldn’t it have already been determined as “service-related” injuries? (I’m no VA expert).
Capt., They would all rate Service Connected disabilities from the VA, Purple Heart or not. You are correct. For the less severely wounded though, having a PH could put them in a much better category for getting services from the VA.
So is LTG Timothy J. Maude going to receive a Purple Heart too? He was killed on 9/11 from the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. I see he has a Purple Heart already but I’m not sure if it was awarded for being wounded in Vietnam or if he got a special exception for being a GO. you know those guys get medals just for not retiring yet.
LTG Maude did receive the Purple Heart
I worked with Mrs. Maude at the Naval Hospital, Beaufort. She is one strong, great lady. Yes, he did receive the PH for being killed on 9-11.
Thanks for clearing that up Jon and 1AirCav69
“Regardless of Hassan’s personal motivations…”
That’s what this whole mess is about! 9/11 was about ‘personal motivations’! Let’s call it what it is, shall we? IDEOLOGY. If we can’t recognize the wolf in the sheepfold even when he’s standing over a dead sheep with his muzzle covered in blood, we are really and truly f*cked as a nation.
Are they still paying the Major Hassan? And if so, is he still not a Commissioned Officer in the Army?
Curious?
I’m sure there are JAGs on this blog who know a hell of a lot better than me, but I am pretty sure that once he was convicted, reduction to E-1 was also part of the sentence.
JAGs, am I wrong?
It seems like I read somewhere that he fled an appeal.
I could be wrong, but would that temporarily negate the sentence(ing)?
filed
Officers do not get reduced, they get dismissed from the service.
What about those two who were shot in Little Rock a few years back? The shooter had the same motivation… and was a civilian vs fellow soldier.
Brothers and Sisters, please pardon my skepticism. While SecArmy McHugh is issuing the Purple Hearts rightly due to those who were harmed and killed during the Hasan Massacre at Fort Hood, how long before the awards are retracted due to political considerations? I truly hope the Purple Hearts will be awarded, but will politics interfere?
This is to long in comming, but I’m glad that Congress finally got this done with the grudging aquiesence of the administration.
Hopefully, victims of other incidents (such as the Little Rock example cited above) will also be approved in short order.
This isn’t about medals or ribbons, it’s about acknowleging that an act of terrorism occurred — which the powers that be still haven’t done. While I’m glad the PH recipients will have benefits that help relieve their burdens, I think the PH is the minimum the politicos thought they could use to kill the issue, and that is what I take exception to.
Terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan didn’t select a school for his attack, although he had many from which to choose. He didn’t randomly shoot people at a train station or a bus stop. Nor did he select a crowd outside of a sports stadium. And he didn’t select a hospital or a building lobby at 4:30 p.m. No, he chose Fort Hood because that’s where his enemy, American soldiers, could be found in large numbers–and unarmed. Putting geography aside, how was this different from incidents in which trusted soldiers, ostensibly on the same side, have killed American soldiers in furtherance of the enemy’s cause? I would add that some who Fell at the hands of their “comrades” did so while unarmed. There was no battle, no firefight, no notice: Just a bomb or bullets and American casualties. No, Hasan targeted American soldiers because he viewed them (quite correctly) as the enemy. Two of his enemies Fell while attempting to rush him. The two, a captain and a specialist, both unarmed, died charging a murdering terrorist bastard. And you’re going to tell me that their survivors should not receive a Purple heart in their name? I urge those who oppose this decision to think it over a little longer.
OK – I am not a Veteran; this means I have no authority on military matters. That said…if we accept that Hassan was acting as an enemy of the United States, and the shooting was done to further enemy aims, wouldn’t that make the shooting an act of war?
If my first proposition is correct (is it?) then wouldn’t the Purple Heart be an appropriate decoration?
I’m waiting for his lawyer to demand a retrial since he’s considered an enemy combatant instead of just a plain ole murderer. I think that one reason it took so long – concern over a possible change in his status.
That was the arguement that the Executive branch used for years in not labeling it terrorism (the legal reasoning having some legitimacy). The text of the law (NDAA 2015) was written in such a way as to preclude that legal maneuvering.
It still doesn’t excuse the Executives intransigence in finding a legal solution long before now.
Don’t think it matters, or would do any good. I’m pretty sure that POWs can be tried by military tribunal for crimes committed while prisoner.
Bottom line: he’s already had his due process. If he wants to claim a retroactive change in status, that’s fine – but changes nada.
If one is wounded or killed by someone who sympathizes with or is a member of a terrorist organization and the wounding or killing is done solely BECAUSE the target is an American serviceman or woman, shouldn’t that alone be enough to justify a Purple Heart? It seems to me it should and doing so would eliminate the Purple Heart for wounding or killing our military men and women for any other reason. (e.g., robbery.) Another example is a spray shooting at, say, a NYC subway station in which two uniformed American soldiers are wounded by a known terrorist. There would be no Purple Hearts, absent evidence that the shooter’s intended targets were, in fact, the soldiers and that the others present were inconsequential to his plan. I’d be happy to hear from others on this.
2/17 Air Cav
I see your point. In some ways the new language is more restrictive in that is requires that the incident be directed against American military members specifically.
For instance, a US military member serving in Israel who was wounded in a rocket attack by Hezballah would have qualified under the previous version of law (only had to be wounded/killed in a terrorist incident), but likely would not qualify under the new version of law as the attack was not specifically directed against the US.
Interesting 2nd and 3rd order effect to the approved text.
Awarding the Purple Heart to the military casualties at Fort Hood is a good beginning, and one I’ve repeatedly advocated ever since the attack, although without any response to my numerous letters and/or published comments from Fort Hood or the Pentagon.
NOW THEN – – – ,
Since they aren’t eligible for the Purple Heart, will the civilian casualties be awarded the Defense of Freedom Medal?
Also, EVERY soldier who was stationed on Fort Hood during the month that attack occurred is rightfully entitled to Hostile Fire Pay.
Finally, to prevent future attacks, EVERY soldier in my United States Army should always be armed, having their loaded rifle with them wherever they go, both on and off duty, as is currently done in Zahal (i.e., the Israel Defense Force).
Actually, we should take things a step farther, and really copy Israel, by issuing each graduate of Basic Combat Training their personal assault rifle and their personal copy of the Holy Bible.
Any soldier who cannot be trusted with a loaded weapon, should not be allowed to serve in the United States Army.
These are the recommendations and opinions that I’ve been writing about for years, but with no acknowledgement or response from the powers that be.
If you read the requirements for the PH, it can also be awarded to civilians.
Um, no – not since 1997. That year, MOPH convinced Congress to change Federal law forbidding the practice. That happened in the NDAA of FY1998 (PL 105-85). The legal restriction on award of the PH only to uniformed personnel remains effective today, as 10 USC 1131.
That the main reason the Defense of Freedom Medal (the civilian equivalent) was created not long after 9/11.
Damn, if thats the case then the Army needs to update a lot of things. Hell thats still a board question.
Since they aren’t eligible for the Purple Heart, will the civilian casualties be awarded the Defense of Freedom Medal?
Yes, the 2015 NDAA directed the SECDEF for reveiw all potential terrorist incidents for the PH and DFM (its included in Section 1129a of the law).
Retoractive award of HF/IDP is probably appropriate for all service members present in the building (much like HF/IDP for 9/11 was limited to the Pentagon) at the time of the incident, but that is a call that strictly falls on the SECDEF within his current authorities. While an interesting question, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.
I don’t think its to much to have SDO/SDNCO’s armed, and certain guard forces. If nothing else, its just good soldier reinforcement training in weapons handling.
I for one support this decision. Now that Fort Hood is considered a war zone I think it is only fair that I become entitled to back hazardous duty / imminent fire pay while I was stationed there.
Oh, yea…. that money should be tax free as well
whoop whoop
I was there in the late 80’s, while not rising to the level of danger pay it definitely rose to the level of hardship duty when compared to many of my other assignments where I did draw that pay.
Haven’t said it yet. But regarding this decision, it’s about f**king time.
“Workplace violence” my ass.
Yep.
Oh, yeah. I hope they wrap this in barbed wire and shove it up Obama’s fourth point of contact – with extreme prejudice.
Old soldier54,you Sir are A RACIST.Since I agree with you I am also A RACIST.Fort Hood was a straight out terrorist attack. Since Nidal was a emeny in our uniform is he not subject to summary excution on the spot. No trail just shoot him as a spy. There is a word for the enemy that puts on our uniform and attacks our servicemen? Joe
Joe, I think the word you are looking for is “infiltrator”.
And I hope that is exactly what is happening to Nidal’s ass at the gray bar motel. It is being “infilled” (with lots of pork products) on a daily basis.
[…] The Lonely Conservative: Pentagon Spent Half A Million Bucks On Viagra This Ain’t Hell: Purple Hearts For Fort Hood Victims Weasel Zippers: NJ Snow-Shoveling Teens Get In Trouble With The Law for Not Having […]