Tag Archives: Fort Hood shooting

Breaking Faith With America’s Military

Posted on by

Fox News posted a story today about the treatment of the shooting victims of the Fort Hood terrorism attack. The Obama Administration has acknowledged that the people hurt and killed in the attack were victims of terrorism. The Obama Administration has also awarded Purple Hearts to the victims. However, the Obama Administration has also denied benefits for the injuries suffered in the attack.

The article reports:

The 2015 defense budget — known as the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA — included language that meant Fort Hood victims were eligible for the Purple Heart honor because the attack was inspired by a foreign terrorist group, and not workplace violence, as the Defense Department initially labeled it.

 Manning (Shawn Manning), who was seriously injured in the 2009 attack) submitted new paperwork so the Army would recognize his injuries were sustained in the line of duty. But his appeal was rejected by a physical evaluation board, apparently based on a narrow interpretation of the law.

“Section 571 of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act addresses both the awarding of the Purple Heart to service members killed or wounded in attacks inspired or motivated by foreign terrorist organizations and the Defense of Freedom Medal for those members and civilians killed or wounded during the Fort Hood attack on 5 November 20009,” the April 6 letter states.

“Nowhere in the act, however, does it offer combat benefits for service members permanently disabled in attacks inspired or motivated by foreign terrorist organizations. Although subsequent legislation and guidance may change, currently, the Board has no authority to award V1/V3 (service related) designation to soldiers disabled during the Fort Hood attack. “

Manning said, “it’s a great thing to finally be recognized, to stand up there and say, ‘Hey your sacrifice did mean something.’”

But he said the board’s decision means, on a practical level, his family will lose back pay, and $800 a month in benefits, adding he believes other Fort Hood survivors will face the same treatment. “I think you know it’s a huge let-down. I hope that’s not what the Army had intended to do.”

The people who were injured at Fort Hood were where they were as part of their military service. To deny them the full benefits that are paid to soldiers wounded in combat is a disgrace. Congress needs to correct this situation very quickly. This is another example of the Obama Administration breaking faith with the American military.

 

Something Good From Washington

Posted on by

Senator Ted Cruz released the following statement today:

“On November 5, 2009, a brutal terror attack was carried out at Fort Hood. The lives of 14 people were taken, one of them an unborn child, and 32 were injured. Today, we are grateful that the U.S. Army has chosen to bestow the Purple Heart, and its civilian counterpart, the Medal for the Defense of Freedom, on these victims,” said Sen. Cruz.
 
“This attack was a clear act of radical Islamic terrorism, conducted on American soil – the original decision to designate it ‘workplace violence’ and deny these honors was a betrayal of the sacrifice of each of the victims.  It is well past time for them to receive these awards and I thank the Secretary of the Army for reaching this determination. We can never undo the events of that day, but we can properly honor the courageous patriots who protect our nation and remain forever grateful for them.”
 
Last year, Sen. Cruz introduced an amendment to the 2015 National Defense Reauthorization Act (NDAA), which was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee and passed by Congress, to expand Purple Heart eligibility to victims of the Fort Hood terror attack.

Thank you, Senator Cruz, for working hard to make sure the victims of the attack were properly treated.

It’s About Time

Posted on by

The only good thing that I can find in the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) is the fact that soldiers killed in the ‘workplace violence’ at Fort Hood may actually receive Purple Hearts and have the events of November 5, 2009, actually regarded as the act of domestic terrorism that they actually were.

Yesterday the Military Times reported:

Victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shootings will be eligible to receive Purple Hearts and combat injury benefits under a provision included in the latest defense authorization deal.

The measure is expected to be approved by Congress next week, and would end a five-year quest by Texas lawmakers to get battlefield recognition for the soldiers killed in the deadliest attack on a domestic military installation in U.S. history.

It could also be a financial windfall for the families of the 13 people killed and 32 wounded in the attack.

The latest authorization draft stipulates that Purple Heart medals will be awarded to “members of the armed forces killed or wounded in domestic attacks inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.”

The article points out that decisions on awarding the Purple Heart within the United States after a terrorist attack have not been consistent.

The article reports:

Troops injured at the Pentagon in the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001, received it. Two Army recruiters shot by a radicalized Muslim outside of a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, in June 2009 did not.

Generally speaking, the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) is a bad bill–it cuts military benefits at a time when we are making a lot of demands on our volunteer military (see rightwinggranny). President Obama is threatening to veto the NDAA, and frankly that would not break my heart. This bill needs to be redone after the new Congress is sworn in in 2015. If there is a week gap in funding, we can pay some things late–other than fixing the Purple Heart situation for Fort Hood victims, the bill needs to be changed. Also, if this bill is what the Republican leadership is going to give us, we need new Republican leadership.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Posted on by

CBN News is reporting today on the annual release of Senator Tom Coburn‘s “Wastebook.” The book details some of the government programs funded by taxpayer dollars in the past year.

Some of the examples listed in the article:

…the U.S. State Department spending $630,000 to attract followers to its Facebook and Twitter accounts.

…a study on angry wives allowed the government to spend $300 million to learn that women would find marriage more satisfying if they could calm down faster during arguments with their husbands.

…in Nevada, $17 million in tax exemptions went to brothels. Deductions ranged from breast implants to promotional free passes to bring in new customers.

…Fort Hood shooter Nadal Hassan collected $278,000 in military benefits because the military Code of Justice doesn’t allow a soldier to be suspended until they are found guilty.

It is disturbing that this spending is continuing while the retirement pay of our military is in danger of being cut. If Congress can’t deal with this spending before cutting in places that will actually do harm to Americans, we need to elect a new Congress.

Enhanced by Zemanta

As Usual Texas Gets It Right

Posted on by

On Friday the Austin American-Statesman reported that Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson announced that the Texas Veteran Land Board will treat the surviving spouses of the Fort Hood massacre as if their loved ones were killed in combat.

The article reports:

Over 150 victims and family members are suing the federal government seeking to have the attack classified as an act of war, which would lead to increased retirement, medical and disability benefits. The federal government has not called Maj. Nidal Hasan, convicted in the shootings on Friday, an enemy combatant, which would open the door to Purple Hearts and expanded benefits.

The details of the arrangement are currently being worked out by the lawyers, and it is not clear how the decision will affect those surviving family members living outside the state of Texas.

If Major Hasan was not an enemy combatant, what was he? If he was a terrorist, then it was a terrorist attack and the families should receive full benefits. The idea that what happened at Fort Hood was workplace violence does not work. The excuse used to call it that was that the government did not want to interfere with the trial of Major Hasan. The trail is now over. Let’s call what happened at Fort Hood a terrorist attack. That’s what it was. Unfortunately it was a terrorist in our own military–a fact that the government had chosen to ignore.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Travesty Surrounding The Shootings At Fort Hood

Posted on by

In November 2009, American soldiers were killed on an American army base by an American terrorist. The incident has been called “workplace violence,” and the soldiers injured in that attack have been denied the Purple Heart and the benefits their families would receive as a result of awarding that medal.

PJ Media reported in May 2012 on the Obama Administration’s threat to veto a defense authorization bill. The article lists one of the reasons for the veto:

No. 26 on the list of veto-worthy offenses is objection to awarding Purple Hearts to the victims of the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings.

“The Administration objects to section 552, which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas,” the veto threat states. “The criminal acts that occurred in Little Rock were tried by the State of Arkansas as violations of the State criminal code rather than as acts of terrorism; as a result, this provision could create appellate issues.”

On June 1, 2009, Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who had spent time in Yemen and was an avowed jihadist, killed one soldier and wounded another in a drive-by shooting on a military recruiting office in Little Rock. He pleaded guilty to murder, avoiding trial and the death penalty, and was sentenced to life in prison.

Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major who had email communications with senior al-Qaeda recruiter and Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, awaits military trial for the Nov. 5, 2009, massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 were killed and 29 wounded.

After the Fort Hood shootings, the FBI quickly said there was no evidence of a greater terrorist plot at work, the Defense Department called it an “isolated” case, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Hasan’s actions were not representative of his Muslim faith.

This is the Clinton Administration’s policy on terrorism–treat it as a criminal action and ignore the problem. This was the thinking that brought us 9-11.

Reuters reported yesterday that the Army has formally declined to issue Purple Hearts to the victims at Fort Hood because it would interfere with a fair trial of Major Hasan. It has been more than three years since the shootings at Fort Hood–why isn’t the trial over?

PJ Media also reported:

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill at the end of April (2012) (H.R.5144) to amend Title 10 of the U.S. Code to provide for the award of the Purple Heart to members of the Armed Forces who are killed or wounded in a terrorist attack perpetrated within the United States.

It’s also retroactive. “The Secretaries of the military departments (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard) shall undertake a review of each death or wounding of a member of the Armed Forces that occurred within the United States between January 1, 2009, and the date of the enactment of this Act under circumstances that could qualify the death or wounding as being the result of a terrorist attack.”

That bill has 13 bipartisan co-sponsors, including Texas Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee (D), John Carter (R), Henry Cuellar (D) and Mike McCaul (R).

That bill never made it out of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

If the Fort Hood incident had happened during World War II, would Major Hasan still be alive? If not, what has happened to our country?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Cost Of Political Correctness

Posted on by

Fox News posted a story today about a report investigating the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. The report was conducted over the course of two years by former FBI Director William Webster.

The report deals with how information on Major Nidal Hasan was handled by the FBI.

The article reports:

Five months after the San Diego Field Office for the Joint Terrorism Task Force sent a lead to the Washington D.C. office with concerns about Hasan, the report said, headquarters conducted their review, only to determine Hasan was not “involved in terrorist activities.” 

After the San Diego office complained, neither office took any additional action. 

The article later reports:

The report also quoted a San Diego official who claimed he suggested to headquarters in June 2009 that it would be appropriate to interview Hasan. 

The Washington officer told him, according to a paraphrase in the report, that: “This is not (San Diego), it’s D.C. and (the Washington office) doesn’t go out and interview every Muslim guy who visits extremist websites.” 

The San Diego official also said he was told the subject was “politically sensitive.” 

Thirteen American soldiers who were on their own base in America are dead and thirty-two were wounded–all because a subject was politcally sensitive??!! This cannot be allowed to continue.

There are some people in Congress who understood instantly what led to the Fort Hood shootings:

Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, the chairman and ranking Republican on the Senate homeland security committee, said the report “reinforces” conclusions they had already reached about the “inadequacy” of the FBI probe. 

But they added: “We are concerned that the report fails to address the specific cause for the Fort Hood attack, which is violent Islamist extremism. And we are skeptical that FBI analysts are now well-integrated into the FBI’s operations, as the report states.” 

On December 8, 2011, the Daily Caller posted the following:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

Fort Hood was not workplace violence. People engaged in simple workplace violence do not stand up and yell, “Allahu Akbar” before they attack. We need to admit that there are people within our government preventing us from clearly seeing and dealing with the problem of Islamic extremism. Most Muslims in America are peace-loving, freedom-loving, non-violent people who are glad to be here. But we need to remember that there are some Muslims who have come to America to aid in the establishment of the world-wide caliphate. Until our government is willing to recognize the problem is Islamist extremism, they will not be able to successfully deal with it.