• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

No Purple Hearts for Fort Hood Victims, Pentagon Says

JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
I agree it was totally 100% workplace violence!
Those killed were not in a combat situation and as such should NOT get the purple heart!!

I am glad they did not insult those who recieved the purple Heart during real combat situations!!

http://news.yahoo.com/no-purple-hea...agon-says-152503982--abc-news-topstories.html

The Department of Defense is making it clear: The military opposes awarding Purple Hearts to the victims of the Fort Hood shooting.

A Pentagon position paper, delivered to congressional staff on Friday and obtained by ABC News, says giving the award to the Fort Hood victims could "irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration" and "undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan [the alleged Fort Hood shooter] by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan's ability to receive a fair trial."

DOCUMENT: Pentagon Position on Fort Hood Purple Hearts

The Department prepared the paper in response to legislation introduced by Rep. John Carter, (R.-Texas), the Congressman whose district includes Fort Hood. The Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act would award both military and civilian casualties of the Fort Hood attack combatant status.

Carter re-introduced the legislation in February in the wake of an ABC News investigation detailing claims by victims that they have been neglected by the military. In a report that aired on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline," former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said she felt "betrayed" by President Obama and that he broke a promise to make sure the victims would be well taken care of.

There has been no comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.

ABC News Investigation: Fort Hood Hero Says President Obama 'Betrayed' Her, Other Victims

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others wounded in the Nov. 5, 2009 rampage at the Army base in Killeen, Texas. Hasan now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder. After numerous delays, that trial is now set to begin with jury selection on May 29.

WATCH Exclusive Video of Fort Hood's Aftermath

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and has treated the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism. Last month, a spokesman for recently appointed Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, told ABC News the Department's position had not changed under his leadership.
 
well it depends if it's a terrorist attack or just an homicide. It's a problem of definition. It's also true that they weren't exactly on a mission against an enemy though.
 
werepossum said:
It was a terrorist attack; they deserve to be awarded Purple Hearts.
Click to expand...

Yep.

(But not victims of 9/11 as someone suggested, they weren't "serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Forces,..")

Fern
 
allisolm said:
I see nothing in there under which they would qualify to receive the medal.
Click to expand...

You don't think the incident meets this qualifier:
(6) After March 28, 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, as I don't believe a lone American Army officer on a shooting spree in any way qualifies as an international terrorist attack against the US.
 
allisolm said:
No, as I don't believe a lone American Army officer on a shooting spree in any way qualifies as an international terrorist attack against the US.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends if it was considered a terrorist attack or not. It seems like some 9/11 survivors would qualify though.
 
allisolm said:
No, as I don't believe a lone American Army officer on a shooting spree in any way qualifies as an international terrorist attack against the US.
Click to expand...
if this is the case, then I agree (it's like a civilian workplace shooting), but I had read that he was an al-qaeda terrorist and not just a nutcase.
If this is the case, where is the difference between this and terrorists shooting up an american base in afghanistan?
The fact that they were not deployed on a specific mission doesn't matter imho because if north korea bombs an american base in the US they'd all get the purple heart regardless of the fact that they weren't on a combat mission, because they were targeted as enemy soldiers, right?

Maybe the discriminating thing should be if they were killed because they were american soldiers (the medal would make sense in this case IF the shooter is an al-qaeda terrorist), or because they were his colleagues and he felt like going postal and he wasn't a terrorist (no medal).
 
allisolm said:
No, as I don't believe a lone American Army officer on a shooting spree in any way qualifies as an international terrorist attack against the US.
Click to expand...

He was acting as an agent for AQ.

AQ is an enemy of the USA and we are technically at war with them under the AUMF.

Fern
 
Fern said:
He was acting as an agent for AQ.

AQ is an enemy of the USA and we are technically at war with them under the AUMF.

Fern
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware he acted alone and not as part of any organized terrorist plot.
 
allisolm said:
As far as I am aware he acted alone and not as part of any organized terrorist plot.
Click to expand...

I understand that he was communicating with a known AQ leader/operative.

His actions, and subsequently, indicate he is clearly allied with AQ.

If you're saying that because he carried it out alone it can't be a terrorist plot I can't agree. The shoe bomber was alone when he attempted his attack and no one denies he's a terrorist or it was a terrorist plot etc..

Fern
 
If I recall correctly, both the FBI and the Army said he had no alliance with any terrorist groups.
 
Do we not have a definitive answer on what the incident was classified as? Terrorist attack or workplace violence.

Really that's the only thing that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top