Tag Archives: Nidal Malik Hasan

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.

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

Hate Crime, Workplace Violence, Or Jihad?

Posted on by

I have always been bothered by the legal concept of ‘hate crime’ for two reasons. First of all, if you are dead, does it really matter if the person who killed you hated you? Second of all, I really don’t believe that a jury can correctly judge the motives of a criminal 100 percent of the time. Charge the criminal with the crime he committed, and let God judge the motive.

This brings me to the trial of Nidal Hasan, charged with the ‘workplace violence’ killing of thirteen people and wounding of more than thirty others. Major Hasan is acting as his own lawyer in the trial.

One of the things Andrew McCarthy (who led the prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik who planned the first attack on the World Trade Center) has said repeatedly is that during the prosecution of the Blind Sheik the prosecution team studied the Koran to see if the Blind Sheik was an extremist or if he was actually (as he claimed) simply following the Koran. To their dismay, they found ample justification for the killing of infidels in the Koran. Mr. McCarthy pointed out that the key to the prosecution was defining the purpose of the attack. The rest of the government prosecutors evidently have not learned that lesson.

Fox News posted an article yesterday describing the first day of the trial:

After a short opening statement in which ex-Army Maj. Nidal Hasan called himself a “mujahedeen,” admitted to the rampage and said “the dead bodies will show that war is an ugly thing,” Hasan cross-examined prosecution witnesses, including retired Lt. Col Ben Kirk Phillips, his former boss. When pressed by the defendant, Phillips acknowledged that his officer evaluation report had graded Hasan as “outstanding.”

But he declined to cross-examine one of his shooting victims, Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who provided the day’s most damning testimony.

Lunsford – who was shot seven times during the incident – described what happened that day, saying he first saw Hasan sitting in a chair, with his arms on his knees while looking at the floor.

He said Hasan then jumped up and ordered the one civilian in the room to leave before shouting, “Allahu akbar” and opening fire. Panic set in among the soldiers, who crowded toward a rear door, which was jammed.

The trial has taken a rather bizarre turn today as Major Hasan’s court-appointed lawyers have asked to be taken off the case.

10 News in Tampa reports:

In a motion filed late Tuesday, Poppe (lead defense attorney Lt. Col. Kris Poppe) and his team said they feel Hasan is trying to purposely get the death penalty and asked the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, to not force them to be part of that effort. Poppe, addressing Osborn on Wednesday, said it became clear that Hasan is seeking the death penalty for himself after hearing the accused opening statement and cross examination of witnesses.

“Assisting him in achieving the goal of moving closer to the death penalty is something a defense trial attorney should not be forced to do,” Poppe said.

But Hasan objected to the defense team’s assertions.

The government is calling the Fort Hoot shootings workplace violence. When lawyers for the wounded soldiers have challenged that ruling, the government has said that calling it terrorism would jeopardize the legal case against Major Hasan. There is another aspect to this, however. If the Fort Hood shooting is a terrorist attack, those wounded soldiers are entitled to Purple Hearts and the benefits that come with being wounded in an attack. Right now, the injured are being denied those benefits.

As witnesses to the attack testify that Major Hasan was yelling “Allahu akbar” during the attack, the idea that this was workplace violence becomes ludicrous. It’s time that the government prosecutors admitted what happened at Fort Hood so that our wounded soldiers could receive the benefits and medals they are entitled to.

Posted On Facebook By Allen West

Posted on by
As I ponder the NSA records data mining episode here are my thoughts. This is like carpet bombing vs. precision attack. Can someone explain why we weren’t listening to Anwar-al-Awlaki and his conversations with Major Nidal Hasan? Why weren’t we able to track Carlos Bledsoe‘s travel to Somalia and Yemen to receive terrorist training? Why didn’t we pay attention to warning signs of Abdul Mutallab (underwear bomber) with a one-way ticket and little baggage traveling from Nigeria to America? Why weren’t we paying attention to the Tsarnaev brothers’ travels and connections to Chechen Islamic terrorism — heck Russia warned us? Why is it that in October 2011, 57 Islamic organizations — several with ties to Muslim Brotherhood — sent a letter to then counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan demanding we purge training materials and punish instructors they deemed “offensive” and we didn’t say “shove it” and target THEIR records? We’d rather carpet bomb Americans to cover our cowardice in confronting Islamic extremism. Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Enhanced by Zemanta

Something Is Very Wrong Here

Posted on by

NBC Connecticut is reporting today that three recipients of the Medal of Honor will present the Congressional Medal of Honor Society’s highest civilian award, the Citizen Honors Medal posthumously to the six educators that were killed trying to protect their students in Newtown. Connecticut on December 14th. I think that is wonderful–they are being awarded this medal because they were killed trying to protect their students.

However, there is another group of shooting victims that is being denied the honor they have earned. The Department of Defense is refusing to award the Purple Heart to those soldiers killed on the attack at Fort Hood, Texas.

On April 2, Military.com reported:

A position paper, delivered by the Pentagon to congressional staff members Friday, says giving the award, for injuries sustained in combat, to those injured at Fort Hood could “irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration.”

If you are attacked at your base and people are killed, isn’t that combat? Admittedly it is unplanned combat, but isn’t a lot of combat unplanned?

The article at Military.com further reports:

Thirteen people were killed and 32 injured in the November 2009 shootings on the base. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the alleged shooter, awaits a military trial on premeditated murder and attempted murder charges.

Fort Hood was a terrorist act–it was not ‘workplace violence.’ Maj. Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar” as he fired. We are at war–this was an attack by the enemy. We need to acknowledge that and make sure that all the victims of that attack receive the honor and benefits they are entitled to. Meanwhile, we do not hesitate to honor civilians in equally awful situations. Both groups should receive medals in a timely fashion.

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

When Is A War Injury Not A War Injury ?

Posted on by

On Friday, ABC News reported that as a result of an ABC news investigative report regarding the shootings at Fort Hood, Republicans in Congress are asking for more information on how the aftermath of the attack was handled. At issue is the Obama Administration’s decision to charge Major Nidal Hasan with ‘workplace violence’ instead of terrorism. That decision has a great deal of impact on those who were victims of the attack.

The decision that the shooting was ‘workplace violence’ prevents those shot by Major Hasan from being awarded purple hearts. It also gives the surviving victims lower priority when it comes to receiving medical care and a loss of benefits available to soldiers whose injuries are considered combat related. Because the shootings were considered workplace violence, they are not considered combat related.

The article reports:

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the Nov. 5, 2009 rampage by the accused gunman, Maj. Nidal Hasan, at the Army base in Killeen, Texas. Hasan, who was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder. Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

It is bad enough that Major Hasan pretty much broadcast ahead of time that he had gone over the edge–some of his lectures, his business cards, etc. He was not reported because no one was willing to take the chance of being called a racist or anti-Muslim. Because no one came forward, thirteen soldiers died as Hasan shouted, “Allahu Akbar.” It seems to me that it should be rather obvious to even the most naive member of the Obama Administration that most people who commit workplace violence don’t shout, “Allahu Akbar,” and that shout might have something to do with a motive for the killings.

Meanwhile, American soldiers and their families pay a price because the Obama Administration does not want to admit that Major Hasan is an example of a domestic terrorists in our military.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Not All Civilizations Are Equal

Posted on by
Benjamin Netanyahu

Image via Wikipedia

This is one of those rambling posts I put up occasionally. If that bothers you, please feel free to stop reading. In a briefing on Islam given to his fellow Army doctors before his shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Nidal Malik Hasan stated, “We love death more than you love life!” We need to think about that for a minute. Western civilization does not have a perfect record on loving life–we treated the American Indians badly, we treated the slaves badly, and we currently allow abortion (which kills the innocent unborn). We’re not perfect. However, generally speaking, we seek to preserve life. Sometimes we’re even a little nutty about it. We value people as individuals and seek to protect them. Unfortunately, that puts us at a disadvantage when dealing with a culture that worships death.

Yesterday Reuters posted an article stating that Israel and the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip have agreed to a prisoner swap. Israeli captive soldier Gilad Shalit will be exchanged for more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in 2006.

The article reports:

Announcing to his cabinet, and television cameras, that a deal had been signed earlier in the day, Netanyahu said he feared time was running out for Shalit amid political upheaval in the Arab world.

“I believe we have reached the best agreement possible at this time, when storms are raging in the Middle East. I don’t know if we could have reached a better agreement, or even achieved one at all, in the near future,” he said.

“It’s possible that this window of opportunity would have closed for good and we never would have brought Gilad home.”

What is he saying? There is so much upheaval in the Middle East right now, and the entire area seems to be moving against Israel. As more militant Islamists take over the countries surrounding Israel and exert their power, the chances of getting Gilad back to Israel alive will grow dimmer. Again, kidnapping has proved to be a worthwhile activity on the part of those who are opposing western civilization. Iran has used it consistently to raise money. Lebanon has also used kidnapping as a weapon. In Beirut between 1982 and 1992, 96 foreign hostages of 21 national origins were kidnapped. You think we would have learned by now that this is a prime money-raising activity (and prisoner release activity) of terrorists.

I admire Prime Minister Netanyahu for making this deal. He knows as he signs the paper that he is paving the way for more terrorist attacks in Israel. He also knows that this is the only way to bring Gilad home alive. Terrorists do not play fair, and until the western world stands in unity against them, they will continue to promote death and violence.

Enhanced by Zemanta