The Purple Heart discussion
On May 1st, the Armed Services Committee sent the Defense Budget to Congress for a vote. In the bill, in section 583, the committee submitted that the Purple Heart should be awarded to the six active duty members of the military who died in Oklahoma when terrorists bombed the Murrah Federal Building;
SEC. 583. AWARD OF PURPLE HEART TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF THE OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, BOMBING.
Notwithstanding section 571(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3387), the Secretary of the military department concerned shall award the Purple Heart pursuant to section 1129a of title 10, United States Code, to the following members of the Armed Forces who were killed in the bombing that occurred at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 19, 1995:(1) Sergeant First Class Lola Renee Bolden, United States Army.
(2) Sergeant Benjamin Laranzo Davis, United States Marine Corps.
(3) Captain Randolph Albert Guzman, United States Marine Corps.
(4) Airman First Class Lakesha Racquel Levy,United States Air Force.
(5) Airman First Class Cartney Jean Mcraven, United States Air Force.
(6) Master Sergeant Victoria Lee Sohn, United States Army.
The Military Order of the Purple Heart has expressed their displeasure in a press release;
While the MOPH is sympathetic to the loss suffered by the families and friends of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, and especially those who were serving at the time in the Armed Forces of the U.S. it cannot support or condone award of America’s oldest and most venerated combat decoration for an act of pure domestic violence. The attack on the Federal Building which killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others on April 19, 1995 was carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols solely in retaliation for a perceived Federal Government mishandling of the 1993 siege of Ruby Ridge, and was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the deadly fire that ended the siege in Waco, TX.
The criteria for award of the Purple Heart medal has been constant and clear – it is awarded only to those who are killed or wounded in combat. In recent years the criteria has been extended to accommodate a change in warfare that has brought the battlefield to our own shores in the form of international terrorism. The MOPH has fully supported award of the Purple Heart to victims in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and the 2009 Ft. Hood, TX, and the Little Rock AR Recruiting Station shootings because these incidents were clearly inspired or motivated by international terrorist organizations. The Oklahoma City bombing had nothing to do with combat on the battlefield or international terrorism.
The MOPH urges all Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, especially those who serve on the Armed Services Committees, to reject this amendment that would cheapen the intent and importance of the Purple Heart medal and denigrate its meaning for those who have received it for their sacrifices to protect the freedoms that all Americans enjoy.
While I agree with the MOPH to some degree, I disagree that it was merely an instance of domestic terrorism, or that should be the sole reason that they oppose the award. The Fort Hood attack could be accurately described as a case of domestic terrorism – an American member of the military attacks other American members of the military to make a political statement about the war in the middle east.
Sergeant James Goins was awarded a Purple Heart on April 30th, 1986 for the injuries he sustained when Libyans bombed the West Berlin LaBelle Disco – he died a few weeks later after losing both legs to the surgeons. But he was out on the town, drinking and dancing when he got clobbered by terrorists.
I’m still not sure why Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, I don’t think they were clear on their reasons either. But the list of members of the military above who lost their lives that day were at their duty station and engaged in daily duties when they lost their lives. Just like my wife’s friend, Captain Maria Ines Ortiz who lost her life while she was doing her daily PT run inside the Green Zone in Iraq. She was awarded the Purple Heart posthumously.
I guess my point is that in this day and age, just doing your duty, just being where you’re supposed to be, no matter where that is, no matter how mundane your job is, that’s enough to get you killed in the war against terror. Ask Private William Long and Private Quinton Ezeagwula who happened to be on hometown recruiter duty and on a smoke break in Little Rock when Carlos Bledsoe decided to shoot them and resulting in Private Long’s death on June 1, 2009.
In my opinion, MOPH should be lobbying for Long’s and Ezeagwula’s awards of the Purple Heart for the same reasons that they oppose the award to the deceased from the Murrah Building.
Category: Military issues
Have seriously mixed reaction to this one, to the point that I almost hope for an award of equal value to cover everyone outside the current requirements for the award of the Purple Heart. Not completely on board with that idea, but see merit in at least discussing it.
Plus, I really, really, really want to defer to the opinion/judgment of the MOPH.
Don’t particularly want another award created simply because it adds to the confusion of awards, and gives additional opportunities for misuse. But, we are in an age unlike previous wars, so perhaps it is time to reflect that in the awards system.
On the fence as well.
Service members died but at the hand of a domestic terrorist – an American.
This is a very slippery slope.
Get ready for the “PTSD” push.
@OWB – – Well stated and thoughtful.
As a life member of the MOPH I have to agree with their position on domestic violence and the issuance of the Purple Heart.
I don’t know, but it seems as though everything has to be so “touchy – feely” trying to satisfy everyone….
Are they going to start issuing CIB’s next?
They were killed in active combat by enemies of the United States. In fact, post arrest interviews and testimony at trial will show the HE concidered himself the enemy.
Good call by Congress, while I understand the position of MOPH at about 49%, there needs to be reasonable wiggle room for such situations.
But what do I know.
Have to say I also have mixed feelings on this one, MCPO. But I probably lean a bit more towards the MOPH’s position.
Everything I’ve read seems to indicate McVeigh and Nichols perpetrated their crime as retribution for the Waco incident. But as far as I know, all they were aiming for was retribution – not a takeover of the Federal government. In my book, that makes them domestic terrorists and criminals – not an “enemy of the United States”.
I agree that it’s a helluva hard call. I can follow the logic of the contrary argument, but it just doesn’t seem quite right to me.
On this one, reasonable people can – and obviously do – disagree. Glad I’m not the one who has to be a modern-day version of King Solomon here.
Whether you are 51% or 49% either way it is a good debate to have.
This stuff matters>
I can see the very strong arguments for and against issuing Purple Hearts in this situation but my old gut doesn’t care about the arguments. It says no. On the other hand, my heart says yes. And what I have learned over the years is that very bad decisions are made with the heart. Or as the old legal saying goes, “Hard cases make bad law.” So, I’m coming down on no.
The nature of warfare against impoverished enemies is very asymmetrical, as a consequence the line between domestic terrorist or international terrorist/enemy of the state is more difficult to ascertain. McVeigh was indeed a domestic terrorist who carried out a massive crime against the US, one in which he declared himself an enemy of the government in order to teach that government a lesson. One could argue that is not much different than the homgrown muslim who decides to act on an ISIS impulse and shoot a service member in the face. Or Hassan who was actually in a US uniform when he acted at Ft. Hood…these are people are on our own shores often citizens who will be committing these acts.
I would argue that it does not cheapen the PH to be awarded in this fashion. If it was awarded at Ft. Hood which was clearly a US officer killing US troops then there is not much of a stretch to award it to those at the Murrah Building who were also killed by a former US trooper while at work doing their duty. Whether the “inspiration” for these acts of terror is international or domestic matters little to the dead, they are still dead. If terrorism is the common thread then it should be awarded regardless of the national or international nature of the terrorism.
If the award criteria were to require action in a combat zone it should not have been awarded at the Pentagon, or at Ft. Hood. Once the MOPH personnel supported those actions they lose credibility with respect to offering a response of cheapening by awarding it at the Murrah Building. We were not attacked at Ft. Hood or at the Pentagon by an enemy nation, we were attacked by terrorists committing crimes on our soil one of who was a US military officer.
If the criteria that MOPH supported includes terrorist crimes on US soil it matters little which terrorist philosophy is in play for my thinking.
Very different situations IMO, VOV.
Hassan was – in common language, not legally – a f**king traitor. IMO, he had renounced his loyalty to the US, and was primarily loyal to radical Islam, which has declared war on the United States (bin Laden fatwa, 1996). He thus was acting not as a US officer, but as the local agent of a bona fide “enemy of the United States”. His attack at Fort Hood was therefore an attack by an armed enemy.
As I noted above, McVeigh and Nichols were attacking a government facility in retribution for a perceived wrong. However, they were not supporting a cause that sought to supplant the lawful government of the US, or which had declared war on the US; they were merely seeking revenge and publicity. I thus consider their actions a criminal and terrorist act – but that’s it. They were not “enemies of the United States” any more than Dillinger or the Occupy {wherever] protesters.
If I accept your position, I have to accept the proposition that an off-duty member of the military who gets hurt by a street thug or protestor who commits an act of domestic terrorism or creates a civil disturbance to further some screwed-up domestic political agenda/gain publicity for a real or perceived grievance also should qualify for the Purple Heart. Do you really want to give Purple Hearts to someone who gets roughed up by a bunch of “Occupy [Wherever]” protesters simply because he was at the right place at the wrong time in [name some city]? Or to someone who gets shot by a criminal whackjob from some domestic racist organization like the NBPP or the KKK while on gate guard duty or while walking down the street in civvies? I would have a real problem with either of those scenarios.
Yeah, this is a hard case, and the McVeigh/Nichols bombing is IMO very close to the line. But IMO, it’s not over the line. Very close – but not over.
YMMV, and apparently does.
Hondo, I defer to MOPH on this, but present for consideration this:
If Al-Quida existed in McVeigh’s day, don’t you think he would be more than glad to join their ranks?
Just sayin’…
OC
The OKC bombing was in 1995. Al Qaeda was founded in the late 1980s, and according to some sources was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1992 hotel bombing in Aden targeting (and missing) US troops en route to Somalia.
Had McVeigh and/or Nichols wanted to act in concert with al Qaeda, they certainly had the opportunity to do exactly that. As far as I know, they did not coordinate their actions with al Qaeda.
McViegh was homegrown. He was a conspiracy theorist and rabidly anti-government. There is practically no chance that he would have joined up with Islamic Terrorists for any attack.
As for the Purple Heart debate, it is a slipperly slope. Were any members of the Armed Forces injured during the Boston Bombings?
When there are widespread riots like Ferguson and Baltimore would any National Guardsman be awarded a Purple Heart?
All enemies… foriegn and domestic.
Interesting enough and a tad off subject… Germany awarded CIVILIANS a Wound Badge in black (3rd Class) if they were injured in a bombing raid.
I received that letter from the MOPH on their stand as I’m a Life Member. I totally disagree with them as do the members of my chapter, who one is a real POW who got to stay at the Hanoi Hilton. My reasoning is my OATH I’ve never forgotten:
….ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC!
Like all, I see the other side of the coin, but if the MOPH thinks giving these honored dead a Purple Heart cheapens the Medal…then I feel sorry for them. At the start of the Vietnam War there were those that didn’t want our wounded to receive a Purple Heart because, “we weren’t in a real war.”
1AirCav69: see my reply to VOV above. I can understand your position, but I cannot agree. McVeigh and Nichols IMO were simply not “enemies of the United States”. They were merely low-life asshole terrorist criminal bastards with a perceived grievance who sought to get even. I’m not sure they even had a cause beyond “Revenge for Waco”.
Hondo, as always your points are good, well intended, and taken that way. As good as they are, I stand by my feelings and most of the feelings of my brothers who disagree with Nationals reasoning. Difference of opinions among friends is a good thing. I respect yours and most of the “young guys” on this site. We are probably using emotion in our decision…rather than some sort of logic, but we know how we feel. (begin song “Feelings” at this point.)
I don’t remember their being much question when Rumsfeld made the decision to award the Purple Heart (and the Defense of Freedom Medal, which he had to invent on the fly) for those killed/wounded on 9/11.
I’m torn on this one, but I think it best that we stay away from the slippery slope.
Same here. My heart says it would be a nice thing to do – and then I remember what paves the road to hell.
Great, respectful analysis.
There aren’t too many other blogs out there that can lay claim to discussing issues that are important to a group like ours without some damn troll sneaking in and upsetting the camaraderie we all enjoy.
I have several issues with this. My opinion is strong but I’m always open to changing my mind. My opinion is based in part on a lot of other questions related to this action I’ve not yet seen addressed. I’d like to know what all of you here think. First, and the biggest for me is the idea that the legislature is telling the DoD who should get a medal. Legislatures change and adapt to align with popular opinion. At least, more or less. For example, in the 1950’s, it was decided to add “Under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. At the time, in the face of the Red Scare, this was a reasonable and popular decision. Imagine trying to get that through in today’s socio-political climate. So, today’s legislature says give these people a Purple Heart. I get the precedent was set by Ft. Hood so this train may have already boarded. I fear it is now leaving the station without a conductor and we will never be able to stop it once it gets a full head of steam. As was already mentioned, the next station is PTSD-ville. The arguments have already started and are being championed by some NOK families (who are called and considered Gold Stars by nearly all the Gold Star groups).Their loved ones died by suicide caused by PTSD, caused by their experiences in the military in a time of war. Some had never deployed, but were in the military during a time of war, which some argue is sufficiently traumatic to cause PTSD and suicide. And they want a Posthumous PH to recognize that these suicides are caused by, if not a physical wound, than spiritual wounds aka “The Moral Injury of War”. I’m not making a statement about this much less expressing my feelings, which are pretty complicated, just reporting here. Maybe one day I’ll have a conversation with Jonn about it all and HE can write about it. Another even stronger push, again by some families, is on to award a PH to those who have died in training and… Read more »
Excellent points…^^^^^^^^ Funny how what goes on in the DoD seems to drive national policy…Anyone that doesn’t think so I will explain if asked, but I digress. IMHO we should stay as close to the written regulation as possible! Sorry but we have to protect our pride and history, even if it sucks. If we don’t where will it end? If the train has already pulled out from the station, then the award has already lost it’s original intent! That said I understand the argument for 9/11-Ft.Hood attacks, because that still conforms to the original intent of the medal. However IMHO the OKC incident is a different animal and injuries or death was not caused by international terrorism or a foreign enemy…but from domestic criminals—that were seriously F$%^ed in the head! Sorry for the next part, but this might help clear up any misconceptions..Per 600-8-22: “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… Read more »
Denise. What you’ve described is the conflict between the head and the heart that many of us have experienced regarding this matter. The head says looks at the Purple Heart criteria, the facts of the OKC bombing and the proposed law that names the names of those who would receive the Purple Heart and says, “No, this is different in kind from combat deaths and the Purple Heart criteria aren’t met.” The heart considers the carnage, the loss of life, and wants to do something–anything–to honor the military losses and says “Yes, give the named personnel the Purple Heart.” And if that conflict were all there were to it, it would simply be a matter of going with one’s head or one’s heart. But that’s not all there is to it. As you, and others, have pointed out, when Congress dictates who will receive the Purple Heart, rather than addressing the criteria for its issuance, the door is open to circumventing the criteria hereafter. Unlike the OKC situation, Fort Hood actually resulted in a change to the criteria: it wasn’t a tailor-made exception for that attack alone. Why, for instance, should NG and Reservists—or ROTC, for that matter– be excluded from eligibility if they are wounded by another McVeigh-like attack? They shouldn’t—and won’t—if we take this ride down the slippery slope. So, as for me, I’m hoping that in this instance, the head prevails over the heart.
No.
For what it’s worth, myself and other PH recipients I’ve talked to think this is BS. I won’t even go into why, but I’d like them to quit cheapening the medal.